Both sets of my grandparents immigrated to the US and had only a few dollars to their name. My dad's family lived in a chicken coop for a time. Even when I was growing up, the money was always really tight. Neither my grandparents nor my parents would have ever considered turning to a life of crime, even when they had nothing. It would have been too dishonorable for them to even contemplate. On the other hand, there are plenty of wealthy CEOs, lawyers, politicians, and other folks who don't bat an eye at committing larceny on an impressive scale beyond what our family ever had to spend, even when they already lead comfortable lives.
So, forgive me if I don't buy the simple and convenient answer that poverty leads to crime, or that it's some simple risk/benefit analysis that people are making. I think that's making an excuse for a breakdown of moral standards and civilized behavior. The problem is that civility is not a natural instinct for many - selfishness and thuggery only takes a single generation to re-assert itself. Morality and civility, on the other hand, takes a near lifetime of work to impart, and only happens when both parents and society make it their highest priority. It's the most important prerequisite for democracy and civilization to work.
I'm an American by nationality, but I'm also Dutch by heritage. Both my parents immigrated from Holland with their families when they were very young, so my entire family is of Dutch stock. I agree that there is a long history of exploitation, and it's not something I'm proud of (The Covenant by James Michener was an interesting read - I'd highly recommend it). So yes, Holland has some national atonement to do, but given it's current socialistic leanings, I somewhat expect the country to plunge itself into bankruptcy and/or irrelevancy before too long anyhow.
Well, here's hoping we learn from past mistakes, my friend.
Of course, the U.S. and most of the rest of the world is making too much money off of the exploitation of Africa to actually want to fix things. Initially, I couldn't think of any way the US could be exploiting African countries, because we don't have colonies there, they're not in a strategic location, and they aren't worth much as trading partners, unlike China. For the most part, I'd say we ignore them more than anything, except for the extracting Africa's natural resources. One just has to glance at the diamond industry to see mass exploitation in action.
I'm typically not one to jump on protest bandwagons (and I think protesting in front of diamond merchants and jewelers isn't the way to go here - they're not the ones doing anything wrong). But this is pretty damn obvious even to someone as typically oblivious as me.
Still, please don't forget that the US sends quite a lot of money, both official and unofficial, to Africa in the form of foreign aid and private donations. And while I agree that corruption ruins good intentions (and sucks up relief funds), there's not much else that can be done, short of an armed invasion - and the US military is already stretched pretty thin. It's a bit too broad a brush, I think, to say "the US" when talking about exploitation. I think most people are complicit by ignorance (or perhaps apathy) - I'd like to think that no one wants to willingly buy a diamond paid for by someone else's blood, but it just hasn't been a big story until fairly recently.
If you do read the article, it's a complicated case (as legal cases always are), that essentially boils down to this: Nigeria's officials, including their judges and politicians, are still perceived as being hopelessly corrupt, and by all appearances this is nothing more than attempted legal extortion. The legal claims by which the lawsuit is proceeding is on shaky ground at best. Even if the claims are legitimate, it still is a sad day, when an organization like this is sued by the very people it's most likely to benefit.
Maybe they aren't ready for a mass introduction of technology - they certainly have shown a compunction for abuse so far. Nigeria is already synonymous with Internet-based moneymaking scams. Does the third world have other, more important priorities instead of laptops, such as basic infrastructure, and a stable and responsive democratic government (most of the world's poorest countries are still ruled by dictators). Complain if you will about the governments of first-world countries such as the US, but if so, you likely haven't seen the corruption of others up close. Visit Mexico for a fine example of what happens when a country with significant potential is rife with corruption from top to bottom. Corruption tends to poison and overshadow even the benefits of democracy and capitalism, as it tends to keep power concentrated in very few hands.
On the other hand, perhaps an opening of information can help to educate the next generation - to give them more options, and more information, more hope. Just as wireless technology is leapfrogging the old, expensive landline-based infrastucture in many countries, perhaps an infusion of technology can help jump-start an economic surge in places that need it most. I just hope they choose to use it wisely.
Careful. It greatly depends on the country. You know, the USA is not the world and all that. We're talking about "Joe Sixpack". I'm pretty sure that translates to "American".
Interestingly, it's seems very similar to the concept of the Wii Zapper (albeit even more creative), in that it's essentially a configuration modification of existing technology.
More importantly, that technology base is now commodotized and available with every single Wii sold. It would be very different if this were being done with more specialized hardware which only a small percentage of customers bought optionally. The exciting thing about these demonstrations are the fact that they're being done with cheap, consumer-grade hardware. That implicitly means that an affordable consumer product actually using these techniques might be just around the corner. I'd imagine the developers at Nintendo are very interested in finding new and innovative ways to use the Wiimote's hardware.
I wonder if a product like this (I'm not saying this will actually be the product, mind you) will end up being the death of Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD? It's always seemed to me like the new HD formats aren't a compelling enough leap in technology to warrant a "standardized" format shift (and the fact that we have two competing standards), since many people already have pretty significant DVD libraries (I know I do). Maybe consumers will simply wait for the next technology to emerge, or at the very least, for one format to become a de-facto standard. I'm certainly not purchasing any HD videos at this point.
GDC and E3 are not (and should not be) the same thing. E3 is designed to allow developers and publishers hawk their latest wares to the gaming press, and thus indirectly to the general public. GDC (formerly CDGC) is a conference for game development professionals to network and learn more about their craft - it's NOT designed for the general public.
I really wish next year game developers simply didn't show up. These awards aren't doing anything to further the industry. It's embarrassing, really. Unfortunately, the odds of that happening are slim to none.
And regarding GameCock's behavior? Well, with any luck, cosmic karma will pay them back for that little stunt of theirs. I'll be sure to boycott any of their products from now on.
Ok, show me an MMORPG with a real plot, with a real dramatic conflict and resolution. http://www.guildwars.com/
Isn't it time to say goodbye to 'levels'?
on
Level Design For Games
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Perhaps I'm just being pedantic, but I'm really tired of the concept of 'levels' in games. I don't want to see loading screens telling me "loading new level..." I'm tired of rocket launchers that don't break wooden doors (or even glass doors. yes, I've seen this) because that would ruin a design's carefully crafted puzzle. I don't want to hear on the back of the box "Twenty Action-packed Levels of Pure Mayhem". Isn't it time the game industry retires this term? I'm fed up with buildings designed like mazes because the game designer simply wants the players to run through a maze. This is what I think of when I hear about 'level design'. I'm sick of levels.
Why do I care about the term 'level' at all? Honestly, I think it encourages game designers, environmental artists (a better name than level designers) and even publishers to think too linearly, and to be intellectually lazy. Publisher: how many levels will this game have? Game designers: 30 levels. Publisher: Fantastic, that's 10 more levels than our competition has. Gamer: yawn...
So what do I want instead? Give me environments! Give me worlds! I want freedom to explore, to find out of the way nooks and crannys, and more than one way of getting from point A to B. I want to solve problems using logic, not by playing "guess what the game designer wanted me to do or go next"? Game designers: Create a living, breathing, interesting world, and then let your players enjoy their time here. Stop shoving the player along a conveyor belt.
Obviously, it's not fair to pin this on the term 'levels'. But it just seems like a term that emphasizes aspects of games I'd love to see the industry move beyond.
I was actually more curious about what 'hakoniwa' was. Apparently, it translates to "Sandplay Therapy". Here's a link that describes the overall concept:
And while my console systems will be performing about the same in five or ten years as they were last year, my PC will be performing perhaps twice as well next year as it is this year. How the heck does your PC get faster and faster like that? Mine tends to perform about the same as when I first bought it. Yours must work out a lot.
Kidding aside, you're missing some of the point of consoles, and one of the reasons people actually enjoy using them (aside from the simplicity of use). I don't WANT a constantly moving target. I like to know that the rig I bought will work optimally with any new game for the next 5 years or so. The next... er, newest... uh, current consoles could perform on par with high-end PCs on release, and by the end of their life cycle, they'll be performing on par with the lowest end of gaming PCs. In other words, consoles start ahead of the curve, and end their lives behind it, and then the cycle repeats. Imagine a stair-step power curve that starts just above the smooth PC power curve and then dips below for the last 2/3s of it's lifetime.
PC gaming, from a purely technical standpoint, will always be superior, because you can simply outspend the console competition. But the difference with gaming is that given a fixed platform, there will be a gradual degradation of gaming performance as the curve moves above and farther away from your rig's performance level.
But in the end, I think the biggest point you're missing is that ultimately, there's much more to a quality gaming experience than technical superiority. I think that with the Wii outselling the PS3, that would be fairly obvious at this point.
Also, I want one of those car stereo toasters. That sounds cool.
Joking aside, you should listen to the audio commentary inside the game. I think too many people make the assumption that a brilliant little game like Portal just somehow 'happens.' You hear time and time again how many iterations to the levels / puzzles were made based off of serious playtesting, or how artists worked to draw the players' eyes to a specific point of interest through through geometry or lighting techniques, or how the programmers worked to solve various technical challenges involved with getting portals to work inside the game. Just because a game is limited in scope doesn't mean those involved didn't work hard to make the experience as fun and engaging as possible.
I watched the first few clips, and couldn't really take much more than that. The arbitrary nature of picking a winner based on "applause" completely invalidated any sort of game mechanic they came up with. More often than not, it seemed like the winner was chosen randomly because the applause levels were essentially split. A simple electronic voting system would have solved this problem elegantly, and made it feel like a real competition.
I think the concept has some potential, as people generally love getting into these sorts of arguments anyhow. It feels a bit too much like a 'beta' release at the moment, though.
It's not just the cost of the player that some people are worried about. It's the possibility of investing huge $$$ in *content* that may become obsolete. Many people enjoy buying DVDs and building a library of their favorite movies and TV shows. For those people, long-term viability of the format itself is of huge concern.
Just FYI, it is actually changing. I believe current Windows game programming logo guidelines require putting save and config files in user data areas, not under the program files. For older games, Vista apparently uses a virtualization system to re-direct the save games to a user location. It's too bad this wasn't enforced in the OS earlier.
"If patent claims continue to be asserted against us, we may be unable to sustain our current business models or profits, or we may be precluded from pursuing new business opportunities in the future."
Honestly, I find option #3 the most likely as well as the most potentially damaging. This form of corporate predation/extortion is likely to prevent the release of old source code, as well as stifling innovation among games. A disturbing trend of patents that cover not just specific technical processes, but actual gameplay, has the potential to really kill innovation among small to mid-sized developers, not just damaging large companies.
I'm sorry to hear you've been left off of the credits. I've worked on about ten game titles or so, and I've never had any problem receiving credit for the work I've done. I think it really depends on the studio you're working for.
As a general rule, pretty much everyone in the company received some sort of credit in our games. People were generally pretty aware of the sensitivity of the issue, and did a reasonable job at giving credit in a fair and thorough manner. I do understand how upsetting it would be. It's not really about ego - it's about a bullet point on your resume in the 'work history' section, not a trivial thing. After all, if you invest anywhere from a few months to a few years of your life into a project, you'd like to think that you'd at least get a verifiable credit in the game.
That being said, even if for some reason I *didn't* get official game credits, I'd make damn sure to try to fix the more-or-less-official-record on MobyGames.com.
Glad to hear it. It's only been out a year and a half though, and even less time than that for PS3 owners. No biggie though...
I was really enthusiastic about the game when it first came out and played quite a bit, but was really disappointed when I discovered the auto-scaling in the game (which sort of ruins - for me at least - the whole point of making your character stronger and collecting better and more powerful loot). So, I put the game down for a while, and only recently started playing it again with a new character.
Martin getting whacked near the end? See, I *never* would have wanted to see that, say, presented in a nice cutscene while playing the game instead of hearing it from you. I know anyone who's anyone has already long since beaten the game, but loser that I am, I started playing not too long ago.
I'm sure you didn't mean to do that maliciously, but... nice spoiler?:(
The article derides the common mechanism of losing player control during a cutscene. I suppose for some people, losing any time of actual gameplay is annoying. I happen to be the complete opposite. I tend to find most gameplay repetitive, and welcome a break in the form of a story, especially if told in a way that's interesting and engaging. To me, a game is so much more entertaining when I actually care about the characters / what's going on.
Naturally, not every game is right for long, drawn out cutscenes. In general, people play shooters for an adrenaline rush, so taking someone out of that 'zone' for too long is probably not the best idea. In an RPG, the story often is considered to be a crucial element of the game, and so probably requires more elaborate exposition. Personally, in many games, I consider each cutscene a small reward for my progress, and look forward to each new story or character development. Some people complain about too much story - I tend to revel in it. 120 minutes of cutscenes in a game? Brilliant, looking forward to it. But don't tell me there's anything wrong with how *I* want to enjoy a game.
I'm not going to disagree with you that episodic content may start making inroads. I think viable integrated distribution/payment methods such as Steam, Xbox Live, and whatever-the-PS3-service-is-called will certainly help push this along.
But regarding your reasoning... it's not quite that simple. Nowadays, no game developer "starts from scratch again" every 12/18 months. Every game development company I've worked for had a core engine which was relatively stable. Even porting the engine to other platforms only meant rewriting specific sections. Every once in a while, a section of the engine is completely tossed and re-written from the ground up (I'm currently doing that now with our audio and cinematic subsystems). Even when starting from scratch, there are generally large portions of code that are pulled over to the new project verbatim.
Software engineering is just too expensive (and modern games are too complex) to toss well-engineered modules out. It's much more economical to use solid engineering design principles so that it's easy to reuse, upgrade, or replace modules as required. Many time, you can forsee some technological advancements many years out, and make sure your engine is designed to expand in those directions.
BTW, my take on why consoles are popular with game companies: a) Huge installed base means potentially large profits b) Stable development platform means fewer compatibility issues c) Piracy is less of an issue (which is also a big reason PC games are all going MMO)
Honestly, for any company, they'll simply go where there's a ready market, so certainly I'd say a) is the most important reason there. Believe it or not, development on consoles is no 'simpler' than on a PC. Here's a few disadvantages consoles have:
a) More primitive development tools / harder to debug b) Unstable/unfinished libraries early in the product life-cycle (Sony is especially bad at this, but all consoles suffer from this to some degree) c) Less forgiving than PCs (one byte too much allocated, and it's game over, unlike the virtual memory of the Windows platform)
Like the Sims? Yeah, that sure didn't go anywhere...
BTW, I'm not sure where you've read claims that "it is completely open and free to do whatever you want and design absolutely anything you want". If someone did indeed say that, you have a right to be skeptical. But I don't recall those claims being made about Spore. To be honest, I attribute that sort of over-promising and under-delivering to Peter Molineaux. Not maliciously, mind you, but I think he tends to dream bigger than his programmers can realistically deliver.
Well, in the end, legally-driven or not, it makes Rockstar look like a bunch of whiners. Harmonix, who's Guitar Hero was parodied, thought it was hilarious and wanted a bunch of copies for themselves. Someone at Rockstar should ask if the slight chance this would cause any legal problems in the future is worth the bad publicity from looking like a bunch of very uncool killjoys.
Not everyone has been a spoil-sport, though. Harmonix, for instance, was so enamored with the "Sitar Hero" parody poster (with Apu playing a 60-button sitar controller) that they asked for 20 copies. "They just loved it so much." http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163412
Slashdot Mirror
Both sets of my grandparents immigrated to the US and had only a few dollars to their name. My dad's family lived in a chicken coop for a time. Even when I was growing up, the money was always really tight. Neither my grandparents nor my parents would have ever considered turning to a life of crime, even when they had nothing. It would have been too dishonorable for them to even contemplate. On the other hand, there are plenty of wealthy CEOs, lawyers, politicians, and other folks who don't bat an eye at committing larceny on an impressive scale beyond what our family ever had to spend, even when they already lead comfortable lives.
So, forgive me if I don't buy the simple and convenient answer that poverty leads to crime, or that it's some simple risk/benefit analysis that people are making. I think that's making an excuse for a breakdown of moral standards and civilized behavior. The problem is that civility is not a natural instinct for many - selfishness and thuggery only takes a single generation to re-assert itself. Morality and civility, on the other hand, takes a near lifetime of work to impart, and only happens when both parents and society make it their highest priority. It's the most important prerequisite for democracy and civilization to work.
I'm an American by nationality, but I'm also Dutch by heritage. Both my parents immigrated from Holland with their families when they were very young, so my entire family is of Dutch stock. I agree that there is a long history of exploitation, and it's not something I'm proud of (The Covenant by James Michener was an interesting read - I'd highly recommend it). So yes, Holland has some national atonement to do, but given it's current socialistic leanings, I somewhat expect the country to plunge itself into bankruptcy and/or irrelevancy before too long anyhow.
Well, here's hoping we learn from past mistakes, my friend.
http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=162
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/78084.html
I'm typically not one to jump on protest bandwagons (and I think protesting in front of diamond merchants and jewelers isn't the way to go here - they're not the ones doing anything wrong). But this is pretty damn obvious even to someone as typically oblivious as me.
Still, please don't forget that the US sends quite a lot of money, both official and unofficial, to Africa in the form of foreign aid and private donations. And while I agree that corruption ruins good intentions (and sucks up relief funds), there's not much else that can be done, short of an armed invasion - and the US military is already stretched pretty thin. It's a bit too broad a brush, I think, to say "the US" when talking about exploitation. I think most people are complicit by ignorance (or perhaps apathy) - I'd like to think that no one wants to willingly buy a diamond paid for by someone else's blood, but it just hasn't been a big story until fairly recently.
If you do read the article, it's a complicated case (as legal cases always are), that essentially boils down to this: Nigeria's officials, including their judges and politicians, are still perceived as being hopelessly corrupt, and by all appearances this is nothing more than attempted legal extortion. The legal claims by which the lawsuit is proceeding is on shaky ground at best. Even if the claims are legitimate, it still is a sad day, when an organization like this is sued by the very people it's most likely to benefit.
Maybe they aren't ready for a mass introduction of technology - they certainly have shown a compunction for abuse so far. Nigeria is already synonymous with Internet-based moneymaking scams. Does the third world have other, more important priorities instead of laptops, such as basic infrastructure, and a stable and responsive democratic government (most of the world's poorest countries are still ruled by dictators). Complain if you will about the governments of first-world countries such as the US, but if so, you likely haven't seen the corruption of others up close. Visit Mexico for a fine example of what happens when a country with significant potential is rife with corruption from top to bottom. Corruption tends to poison and overshadow even the benefits of democracy and capitalism, as it tends to keep power concentrated in very few hands.
On the other hand, perhaps an opening of information can help to educate the next generation - to give them more options, and more information, more hope. Just as wireless technology is leapfrogging the old, expensive landline-based infrastucture in many countries, perhaps an infusion of technology can help jump-start an economic surge in places that need it most. I just hope they choose to use it wisely.
You know, the USA is not the world and all that. We're talking about "Joe Sixpack". I'm pretty sure that translates to "American".
Now if you want to discuss "Igor Bottleovodka"...
Interestingly, it's seems very similar to the concept of the Wii Zapper (albeit even more creative), in that it's essentially a configuration modification of existing technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Remote#Wii_Zapper
More importantly, that technology base is now commodotized and available with every single Wii sold. It would be very different if this were being done with more specialized hardware which only a small percentage of customers bought optionally. The exciting thing about these demonstrations are the fact that they're being done with cheap, consumer-grade hardware. That implicitly means that an affordable consumer product actually using these techniques might be just around the corner. I'd imagine the developers at Nintendo are very interested in finding new and innovative ways to use the Wiimote's hardware.
I wonder if a product like this (I'm not saying this will actually be the product, mind you) will end up being the death of Blu-Ray and/or HD-DVD? It's always seemed to me like the new HD formats aren't a compelling enough leap in technology to warrant a "standardized" format shift (and the fact that we have two competing standards), since many people already have pretty significant DVD libraries (I know I do). Maybe consumers will simply wait for the next technology to emerge, or at the very least, for one format to become a de-facto standard. I'm certainly not purchasing any HD videos at this point.
GDC and E3 are not (and should not be) the same thing. E3 is designed to allow developers and publishers hawk their latest wares to the gaming press, and thus indirectly to the general public. GDC (formerly CDGC) is a conference for game development professionals to network and learn more about their craft - it's NOT designed for the general public.
I really wish next year game developers simply didn't show up. These awards aren't doing anything to further the industry. It's embarrassing, really. Unfortunately, the odds of that happening are slim to none.
And regarding GameCock's behavior? Well, with any luck, cosmic karma will pay them back for that little stunt of theirs. I'll be sure to boycott any of their products from now on.
Perhaps I'm just being pedantic, but I'm really tired of the concept of 'levels' in games. I don't want to see loading screens telling me "loading new level..." I'm tired of rocket launchers that don't break wooden doors (or even glass doors. yes, I've seen this) because that would ruin a design's carefully crafted puzzle. I don't want to hear on the back of the box "Twenty Action-packed Levels of Pure Mayhem". Isn't it time the game industry retires this term? I'm fed up with buildings designed like mazes because the game designer simply wants the players to run through a maze. This is what I think of when I hear about 'level design'. I'm sick of levels.
Why do I care about the term 'level' at all? Honestly, I think it encourages game designers, environmental artists (a better name than level designers) and even publishers to think too linearly, and to be intellectually lazy. Publisher: how many levels will this game have? Game designers: 30 levels. Publisher: Fantastic, that's 10 more levels than our competition has. Gamer: yawn...
So what do I want instead? Give me environments! Give me worlds! I want freedom to explore, to find out of the way nooks and crannys, and more than one way of getting from point A to B. I want to solve problems using logic, not by playing "guess what the game designer wanted me to do or go next"? Game designers: Create a living, breathing, interesting world, and then let your players enjoy their time here. Stop shoving the player along a conveyor belt.
Obviously, it's not fair to pin this on the term 'levels'. But it just seems like a term that emphasizes aspects of games I'd love to see the industry move beyond.
I was actually more curious about what 'hakoniwa' was. Apparently, it translates to "Sandplay Therapy". Here's a link that describes the overall concept:
http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/1/93
Kidding aside, you're missing some of the point of consoles, and one of the reasons people actually enjoy using them (aside from the simplicity of use). I don't WANT a constantly moving target. I like to know that the rig I bought will work optimally with any new game for the next 5 years or so. The next... er, newest... uh, current consoles could perform on par with high-end PCs on release, and by the end of their life cycle, they'll be performing on par with the lowest end of gaming PCs. In other words, consoles start ahead of the curve, and end their lives behind it, and then the cycle repeats. Imagine a stair-step power curve that starts just above the smooth PC power curve and then dips below for the last 2/3s of it's lifetime.
PC gaming, from a purely technical standpoint, will always be superior, because you can simply outspend the console competition. But the difference with gaming is that given a fixed platform, there will be a gradual degradation of gaming performance as the curve moves above and farther away from your rig's performance level.
But in the end, I think the biggest point you're missing is that ultimately, there's much more to a quality gaming experience than technical superiority. I think that with the Wii outselling the PS3, that would be fairly obvious at this point.
Also, I want one of those car stereo toasters. That sounds cool.
Joking aside, you should listen to the audio commentary inside the game. I think too many people make the assumption that a brilliant little game like Portal just somehow 'happens.' You hear time and time again how many iterations to the levels / puzzles were made based off of serious playtesting, or how artists worked to draw the players' eyes to a specific point of interest through through geometry or lighting techniques, or how the programmers worked to solve various technical challenges involved with getting portals to work inside the game. Just because a game is limited in scope doesn't mean those involved didn't work hard to make the experience as fun and engaging as possible.
I watched the first few clips, and couldn't really take much more than that. The arbitrary nature of picking a winner based on "applause" completely invalidated any sort of game mechanic they came up with. More often than not, it seemed like the winner was chosen randomly because the applause levels were essentially split. A simple electronic voting system would have solved this problem elegantly, and made it feel like a real competition.
I think the concept has some potential, as people generally love getting into these sorts of arguments anyhow. It feels a bit too much like a 'beta' release at the moment, though.
It's not just the cost of the player that some people are worried about. It's the possibility of investing huge $$$ in *content* that may become obsolete. Many people enjoy buying DVDs and building a library of their favorite movies and TV shows. For those people, long-term viability of the format itself is of huge concern.
Just FYI, it is actually changing. I believe current Windows game programming logo guidelines require putting save and config files in user data areas, not under the program files. For older games, Vista apparently uses a virtualization system to re-direct the save games to a user location. It's too bad this wasn't enforced in the OS earlier.
"If patent claims continue to be asserted against us, we may be unable to sustain our current business models or profits, or we may be precluded from pursuing new business opportunities in the future."
Honestly, I find option #3 the most likely as well as the most potentially damaging. This form of corporate predation/extortion is likely to prevent the release of old source code, as well as stifling innovation among games. A disturbing trend of patents that cover not just specific technical processes, but actual gameplay, has the potential to really kill innovation among small to mid-sized developers, not just damaging large companies.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=8279
This kind of crap really has to be stopped.
I'm sorry to hear you've been left off of the credits. I've worked on about ten game titles or so, and I've never had any problem receiving credit for the work I've done. I think it really depends on the studio you're working for.
As a general rule, pretty much everyone in the company received some sort of credit in our games. People were generally pretty aware of the sensitivity of the issue, and did a reasonable job at giving credit in a fair and thorough manner. I do understand how upsetting it would be. It's not really about ego - it's about a bullet point on your resume in the 'work history' section, not a trivial thing. After all, if you invest anywhere from a few months to a few years of your life into a project, you'd like to think that you'd at least get a verifiable credit in the game.
That being said, even if for some reason I *didn't* get official game credits, I'd make damn sure to try to fix the more-or-less-official-record on MobyGames.com.
Glad to hear it. It's only been out a year and a half though, and even less time than that for PS3 owners. No biggie though...
I was really enthusiastic about the game when it first came out and played quite a bit, but was really disappointed when I discovered the auto-scaling in the game (which sort of ruins - for me at least - the whole point of making your character stronger and collecting better and more powerful loot). So, I put the game down for a while, and only recently started playing it again with a new character.
Martin getting whacked near the end? See, I *never* would have wanted to see that, say, presented in a nice cutscene while playing the game instead of hearing it from you. I know anyone who's anyone has already long since beaten the game, but loser that I am, I started playing not too long ago.
:(
I'm sure you didn't mean to do that maliciously, but... nice spoiler?
The article derides the common mechanism of losing player control during a cutscene. I suppose for some people, losing any time of actual gameplay is annoying. I happen to be the complete opposite. I tend to find most gameplay repetitive, and welcome a break in the form of a story, especially if told in a way that's interesting and engaging. To me, a game is so much more entertaining when I actually care about the characters / what's going on.
Naturally, not every game is right for long, drawn out cutscenes. In general, people play shooters for an adrenaline rush, so taking someone out of that 'zone' for too long is probably not the best idea. In an RPG, the story often is considered to be a crucial element of the game, and so probably requires more elaborate exposition. Personally, in many games, I consider each cutscene a small reward for my progress, and look forward to each new story or character development. Some people complain about too much story - I tend to revel in it. 120 minutes of cutscenes in a game? Brilliant, looking forward to it. But don't tell me there's anything wrong with how *I* want to enjoy a game.
I'm not going to disagree with you that episodic content may start making inroads. I think viable integrated distribution/payment methods such as Steam, Xbox Live, and whatever-the-PS3-service-is-called will certainly help push this along.
But regarding your reasoning... it's not quite that simple. Nowadays, no game developer "starts from scratch again" every 12/18 months. Every game development company I've worked for had a core engine which was relatively stable. Even porting the engine to other platforms only meant rewriting specific sections. Every once in a while, a section of the engine is completely tossed and re-written from the ground up (I'm currently doing that now with our audio and cinematic subsystems). Even when starting from scratch, there are generally large portions of code that are pulled over to the new project verbatim.
Software engineering is just too expensive (and modern games are too complex) to toss well-engineered modules out. It's much more economical to use solid engineering design principles so that it's easy to reuse, upgrade, or replace modules as required. Many time, you can forsee some technological advancements many years out, and make sure your engine is designed to expand in those directions.
BTW, my take on why consoles are popular with game companies:
a) Huge installed base means potentially large profits
b) Stable development platform means fewer compatibility issues
c) Piracy is less of an issue (which is also a big reason PC games are all going MMO)
Honestly, for any company, they'll simply go where there's a ready market, so certainly I'd say a) is the most important reason there. Believe it or not, development on consoles is no 'simpler' than on a PC. Here's a few disadvantages consoles have:
a) More primitive development tools / harder to debug
b) Unstable/unfinished libraries early in the product life-cycle (Sony is especially bad at this, but all consoles suffer from this to some degree)
c) Less forgiving than PCs (one byte too much allocated, and it's game over, unlike the virtual memory of the Windows platform)
Like the Sims? Yeah, that sure didn't go anywhere...
BTW, I'm not sure where you've read claims that "it is completely open and free to do whatever you want and design absolutely anything you want". If someone did indeed say that, you have a right to be skeptical. But I don't recall those claims being made about Spore. To be honest, I attribute that sort of over-promising and under-delivering to Peter Molineaux. Not maliciously, mind you, but I think he tends to dream bigger than his programmers can realistically deliver.