Ok, I'll go ahead and confirm this for you. I happen to know one of the devs working at Blizzard during the development of Diablo, and asked him about this.
According to him, yes, Diablo actually did start out as a turn-based game. Blizzard North was heading up the development, but under pressure from Blizzard South (everyone there figured that real-time would be much more popular), the switch was made from turn-based to real-time.
I think the conversion process was slightly less dramatic from the way he described it, but the meat of the story appears to be true.
I wonder how it came to be that we're now so reliant on high-powered machines to perform routine tasks which could be done similarly on machines far less powerful. What is so different about today? Ok, I'll bite...
I helped to set up a small network (5 stations) for my parent's business (a sign fabrication shop) a number of years ago. All the machines were 386-class processors. They were using DOS with a Lantastic peer-to-peer network, and they ran custom software for billing and job tracking, Wordperfect, & Lotus 1-2-3. I remember the pain of trying to get the system stable and working together nicely. Still, the jump in productivity and increased organizational benefits were undeniable (especially with the job tracking and payroll systems).
Nowadays, the shop uses a Windows 2000 and XP-based network (with dedicated Windows 2000 server). They now use MS Office for common documents, MAS-90 accounting software, and the same old DOS-based custom software for job tracking (which is faster and more stable under Windows than it ever was under DOS). Even word processing - would anyone seriously deny the simple fact that WYSIWYG is far superior to a fixed-font text representation? It requires additional power to do this. Additionally, they use dedicated Windows machines for design stations running CorelDRAW and specialized CAD/CAM software from Gerber Scientific Products as vinyl cutter/printer stations. The sales force also use their laptops all the time, and everyone relies on e-mail and Internet connectivity as a daily tool for business communication and information gathering. All in all, they couldn't be happier with the way their computers assist their business and productivity.
Overall, the modern network is far more useful and stable than it was when I originally set it up. The vast increase in computing power and storage space has allowed them to be more responsive to the customers needs. The more powerful machines offer far more flexibility as far as manipulating designs and organizing photos / multimedia. And, as a bonus, each time new hardware is purchased, it tends to cost less than what the replacement machines originally cost even before adjusted for inflation.
Stick with your command-line OS's if you like, but in my experience, the switch to high-powered graphically-oriented workstations has made a huge difference in productivity and easy-of-use, and allowed design and presentation-related innovation in ways that would have been impossible just a few years ago, and all for less money per computer. I think you're looking at those old systems through rose-colored view-screens, my friend.
From the article:
Sen. Simpson, who describes herself as a strong First Amendment advocate as well as an "avid video gamer," said that she was troubled by her 8-year-old grandson's being able to purchase an M-rated game at an unnamed retailer. Many disastrous undertakings are launched with the absolute best intentions in the world. After all, what is the harm in making sure that young children to not accidentally get their hands on games designed for more mature consumers? Doesn't that sound like a good thing? These legislators tend to fall into the trap of thinking that all of society's (supposed) ills can and should be cured by passing laws.
First and foremost, how exactly did an 8-year old child purchase a 50-dollar video game? I'm presuming that Mom or Dad bought it for them. Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be to appropriate money for a public awareness campaign, demonstrating to parents what the ESRB ratings mean and what to look for (although personally it still seems like a foolish waste of public money).
I'd much rather see consumers put pressure on stores to voluntarily enforce age-related purchasing restrictions. If a store declines to do this, then consumers have the option of attempting to persuade the business to do so via a PR campaign or a public boycott, or simply taking their business elsewhere. If enough of the public agrees with this position, then the persuasion will likely encourage a change in policy - all without government intervention. Many stores have already adopted this policy voluntarily.
I have no problem with stores setting their own rules, and I have no problem with individuals or groups putting pressure on stores to adopt a policy more to their liking. But getting the government involved is a step that has to be considered much more carefully. Just because one opposes government involvement in this matter doesn't mean that one thinks sales of mature video games to children is a good thing.
...but the fact that people in capitalist societies still use MS despite knowing perfectly well what they are getting themselves into is more their own fault than MS's. What exactly are is a company getting themselves into by buying MS Office?
From a pragmatic standpoint: They are getting an extremely popular software suite created by a profitable corporation that they'll have no trouble contracting support or training for. As a bonus, it will be the most compatible with what their clients and partners are using (by virtue of it's dominance in the marketplace). This hardly seems like a risky proposition for a business.
I have no excess love for Microsoft and their strong arm tactics, but some sort of conspiracy theory about how Microsoft is going to somehow lock you out of your data (I mean, it's not like you can't export most documents to text or RTF) is going to turn off more users than an honest discussion about how an alternative product might be a better investment for a company.
It is possible to build a new format on top of the universally understood HTML and CSS. Awesome. So he wants us to use a language originally designed to display text, images, and hyperlinks in a context-sensitive manner as a document format? That's just what the industry needs... another house built on a foundation of sand.
To show that it's possible, Bert Bos and I published a book using HTML and CSS. File | Export to Web? Am I missing something here? What does that prove?
Funny, he didn't mention that he "wrote" the book in HTML, just that he "published" it in HTML. I can publish my book to HTML, PNG, text, paper, Braile, and Morse Code. It doesn't make that an appropriate universal document format though.
Look, I agree with his derision of MS and their hypocritical format games. But he really should have known where to quit. The specifications are just binary dumps with brackets around them? I think he stretches his credibility a bit there.
No one seems to mention the fact that this guy bought his machines for a gaming center. This places those machines in a whole different category of use than a home user (longer hours, rougher treatment, etc). Someone already mentioned dirty power as a likely culprit. We also notice from reading the article that his gaming center has shut down - impending lawsuit? We only have his word that three of the machines were "personal use only". I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the failure rate is under 10%. Would anyone like to calculate the odds of someone getting 7 out of 7 failed machines given that (probably overestimated) failure rate?
All in all, it just doesn't add up. Maybe I'm too skeptical for my own good, but I'm just having a hard time buying this. The fact that I personally know a quite a few people (at least a couple of dozen, including myself) with perfectly operational 360s - (a number of them launch units) with no failures so far further fuels my doubting nature.
It's not just Japanese companies that miss the big picture regarding group dynamics.
At a multi-studio game company I worked for a few years ago, I was part of a successful new studio that got broken up in part because they wanted to redistribute our personnel. Ironically, we ended up being victims of our own success. The management got it into their head that they could improve the overall quality of the other studios by breaking up our groups and redistributing it throughout the company.
Still, it wasn't all bad, as this helped motivate me to find a new job at a much better company.
...Sure, that's blaming the victim, but in this case the user is victimizing themselves.... If they can't be bothered to do the most basic research, screw 'em... Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Allowing the masses to get hacked makes the Internet a worse place for everyone.
Believe it or not, I believe the game industry is actually growing up. Losing your life to the almighty schedule was the accepted norm a few years ago, but not so much today. I actually know of publishers routinely scheduling six-day workweeks for the latter half of the project, and seven-day workweeks for the final month or two.
This is an issue I actually talked with my current employer about during the hiring process. I've now worked at a pretty well-known studio for the couple of years, and have shipped two successful games. So far, I'm still working normal 40-hour work weeks, except for the few weeks before and after the ship data (after because it's online). And so far, I have yet to come in on a weekend.
The company was founded by guys who were tired of the burn at other companies and wanted to make sure theirs was not like that. Lots of our devs have families and young kids, and it's a great working atmosphere. And, we're *still* very productive. Many companies are starting to understand it's just not worth burning out your talent and losing them for the sake of a single title.
For anyone looking for a job in the industry... don't let anyone tell you that everyone in the industry goes through insane crunches. Crunches, yes, but the days of mandatory death-marches are fast disappearing. Many developers love to brag about how many hours they worked during the end days of a project (guess it's the game developer equivalent of a war story), but I'm no longer impressed. Putting up with that kind of a nightmare is just foolish at best, and destructive at worst.
Do we really want to let people loose on Linux who can't [be bothered to] install it themselves? And people wonder why Linux is struggling to find it's way to the desktop? This is marked +4 insightful, so I'm assuming that at least a few people agree with this. This is a perfect example of many Linux user's schizophrenic nature (or maybe it's just/.ers): Partially wanting to spread the joys of Linux to the masses, but at the same time reveling in our geekness to the extend of near guaranteed exclusion of non power-users. It would be nice if we just picked one and stuck with it.
Maybe a better question is (if we're indeed interested in bringing Linux to the masses): How can we create an installer that makes it impossible to mess up a Linux installation? or... Can we create a configuration utility that is flexible enough to easily alter anything we don't particularly like about the default installation?
In Libertarian Crazy Land, the only difference would be that at no point would the corporate-run security officers even have to pretend to care about serving you or having the general public interest at heart. They would explicitly work on behalf of the interests of the company that hired them. What inherently makes the motivation of a government worker more pure and noble than a private employee?
Oddly enough, I find that most companies that I do business with serve me very well and quite courteously. The biggest motivation for them is the simple fact that I can choose another company if I am not satisfied with their services. When this motivation is taken away by virtue of a monopoly or near-monopoly, the service becomes much worse. The closer to a pure monopoly, in fact, the worse the service. The problem with the government as an exclusive service provider is that it instantly becomes a monopoly, and therefor has no direct incentive to provide better service. Voting can mitigate this somewhat, but because there is no direct competition, the government can never "lose business" no matter how appalling the service or the product.
A critical of government, IMO, is to be a watchdog over the corporations (ala Enron), as simply losing a job or going out of business is not sufficient deterrant or punishment for some crimes or infractions. And, there are some situations where a company's policies could have potentially devastating results for an individual, and so need regulation (banking, insurance, health care). But we really get into trouble when the government tries to start running the whole show.
Now they don't have to waste dollars competing against each other. Instead, they can focus on competing against traditional radio and podcasts+mp3 players. And, this allows them to pool technology and resources. Economics of scale, and all that.
When the US trades with or invests in some third world country, we're accused of exploitation. When we have nothing to do with a country (ala trade embargo), we're accused of interfering with their economic development.
Note - I actually agree with you. The embargo is a stupid and dated idea. At this point, though, the US might as well wait for Castro to croak. It would be a good time to offer an olive branch without the US government appearing as waffling on its pro-democracy commitments around the world (and hopefully soothing the Cuban population of the US a bit, which is vehemently anti-Castro).
...plastered with jesus fish and republican bumper stickers, and driven by an 85 pound woman chatting away on her cell phone... Ah, I see... so Christians, Republicans, women, and cell-phone users shouldn't drive SUVs? Funny enough, that describes my sister-in-law, who uses her SUV for regular trips with her husband and two kids over a very high mountain pass to visit her parents. It's a 6 hour trip, and an SUV is the safest and most comfortable way to travel. My brother drives to work in an old rice-burner, which is nice and fuel efficient, but they would have a hard time affording a third car just for her shorter commutes. If you knew them at all, you'd know the last thing in the world they're interested in is a status symbol.
I hear the argument you make so many times, and yes, some people probably don't need those cars. But there are plenty of people out there for whom an SUV is a practical vehicle. Where I live (Seattle), there are TONS of opportunities to make use of one of those vehicles for towing boats, driving up to or over mountains, etc, etc. Sorry if your life is so sedentary, but not everyone lives (or thinks) the same way you do.
Unfortunately, most company legal departments would *never* allow anything vaguely entertaining such as a skewered Pillsbury doughboy in the game. I recall a recent postmortem article in Game Developer magazine... the writer described how their legal department nixed an *invented* restaurant name because they feared it was too common and likely to be used by some restaurant in real life.
That's the current legal climate of business today. Tort reform, anyone?
Badly designed cities are no less social engineering than cities designed to be more efficient and accessible. Perhaps we have differing definitions of "social engineering". I'm not talking about "urban planning" or "engineered systems". None of what you describe, at least to me, falls under the most definition I'm familiar with (maybe in a very round-about way, but I think that's stretching the definition a bit). Yes, they do influence society to a degree, but many examples of those were not engineered with the purpose of transforming societal behaviors in a specific (political) manner, and that is the distinction.
Regarding car culture as social engineering: in this case, there was no outside influence - the society itself wished to embrace this, and the capitalist engine of our society was more than happy to provide the means to do so. I consider capitalism (and by extension, advertisement and consumerism) to be an integral part of our society, and so wouldn't consider it to be social engineering in the classical sense. I'd probably describe it as a natural social evolution.
Hopefully this clarifies what I meant - just that the force required to alter a society's behavior always has the inherent danger of eroding liberty, and thus should be used cautiously.
The real alternative is finding ways to use less energy overall for transportation (better public transportation, better design of cities, etc.) But those problems present political and social problems at least as big as the technological challenges of building better batteries. Not trying to flamebait here, but every time I hear words to this effect the hairs on the back of my neck raise up. In essence, you're saying "The real solution isn't to invent some new technology to solve this problem (its not like we have a history of innovation or anything). The real solution is to completely re-invent our society because it's completely dependent on a vast supply of affordable energy.
In general, mankind's attempt at science-based engineering has proven far more successful and reliable than attempts to "engineer" societies.
Apparently the answer to "Can you tell me what was the most difficult bug you faced while programming and what you did to resolve it?" isn't "My programs don't have bugs." Too funny. I think I really started to mature as a programmer when I realized that I actually *don't* know all the answers, that *everyone* makes mistakes, and it's foolish to let pride get in the way of asking someone for help or admitting you had absolutely no clue about something (instead of trying to bluff your way through).
I'm perfectly willing to let the market make those decisions for us. At the moment, it seems willing to support multiple competing platforms, which is the absolute best thing for consumers.
And ultimately, where does some monolithic "standard" leave the possibility of innovation in hardware? Would Nintendo have been able to produce a small, inexpensive, and innovative console like the Wii by adhering to some standard? I sort of doubt it. It's fine to have standards for CD or DVD playback. But for games, I'll take innovation over standards anyday.
...and laid their proverbial dick on the table for all the public to see. I'd like to keep an anti-DRM stance as a "good thing" in my mind. Your analogy is not helping.
Wikipedia can't reasonably be the repository of all human knowledge. At a certain point, the storage costs exceed the usefulness to the general public. It's just a matter of practicality. I have a feeling that Wikipedia would simply collapse under it's own weight if it were flooded with a significant portion of the world's minutia / trivia.
Besides, nowadays, it shouldn't be too hard to look up the name of a specific school - just Google it. What information would Wikipedia provide that a direct link to the school's home page couldn't provide?
Re:'Game Designer' AKA Former EB Sales Clerk
on
Why Do Games Sell?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
DOOM 3 is a great example of a game that, to its detriment, focused way too much on technological prowess and neglected solid game design. (i.e. can't use flashlight and gun at the same time, an entire game of enemies magically appearing behind you, etc)
Every game I've worked on (I'm a programmer, not a designer btw) had a critical need of a designer to shape the direction, design all the missions, tweak all the numbers (skills, weapons, spells, enemies, items, rewards, etc), and ensure the game is balanced and fun to play. Yes, some designers were better than others - just like any other profession.
Does it make more sense to have your more expensive programmers or artists doing this sort of work? That makes no sense to me, although I have heard of companies leaning in this direction. The problem with this approach is that not every artist or programmer really has the sensibilities or desire to design the game as well as working on their specific craft. I've known a number of both artists and programmers like this. They work very well when they have specific and well-defined task, but tend to stumble a bit when given more ambiguous tasks.
I'd suggest that games probably cost 60 bucks because the market has determined that this is the optimal price point for maximizing profits, given the content and development costs of a AAA title versus the standard market size, not because game makers pay for designers.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'll go ahead and confirm this for you. I happen to know one of the devs working at Blizzard during the development of Diablo, and asked him about this.
According to him, yes, Diablo actually did start out as a turn-based game. Blizzard North was heading up the development, but under pressure from Blizzard South (everyone there figured that real-time would be much more popular), the switch was made from turn-based to real-time.
I think the conversion process was slightly less dramatic from the way he described it, but the meat of the story appears to be true.
I helped to set up a small network (5 stations) for my parent's business (a sign fabrication shop) a number of years ago. All the machines were 386-class processors. They were using DOS with a Lantastic peer-to-peer network, and they ran custom software for billing and job tracking, Wordperfect, & Lotus 1-2-3. I remember the pain of trying to get the system stable and working together nicely. Still, the jump in productivity and increased organizational benefits were undeniable (especially with the job tracking and payroll systems).
Nowadays, the shop uses a Windows 2000 and XP-based network (with dedicated Windows 2000 server). They now use MS Office for common documents, MAS-90 accounting software, and the same old DOS-based custom software for job tracking (which is faster and more stable under Windows than it ever was under DOS). Even word processing - would anyone seriously deny the simple fact that WYSIWYG is far superior to a fixed-font text representation? It requires additional power to do this. Additionally, they use dedicated Windows machines for design stations running CorelDRAW and specialized CAD/CAM software from Gerber Scientific Products as vinyl cutter/printer stations. The sales force also use their laptops all the time, and everyone relies on e-mail and Internet connectivity as a daily tool for business communication and information gathering. All in all, they couldn't be happier with the way their computers assist their business and productivity.
Overall, the modern network is far more useful and stable than it was when I originally set it up. The vast increase in computing power and storage space has allowed them to be more responsive to the customers needs. The more powerful machines offer far more flexibility as far as manipulating designs and organizing photos / multimedia. And, as a bonus, each time new hardware is purchased, it tends to cost less than what the replacement machines originally cost even before adjusted for inflation.
Stick with your command-line OS's if you like, but in my experience, the switch to high-powered graphically-oriented workstations has made a huge difference in productivity and easy-of-use, and allowed design and presentation-related innovation in ways that would have been impossible just a few years ago, and all for less money per computer. I think you're looking at those old systems through rose-colored view-screens, my friend.
Timeslots? Channels? TV Guide?
These mean nothing to me now. I love my TiVo...
First and foremost, how exactly did an 8-year old child purchase a 50-dollar video game? I'm presuming that Mom or Dad bought it for them. Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be to appropriate money for a public awareness campaign, demonstrating to parents what the ESRB ratings mean and what to look for (although personally it still seems like a foolish waste of public money).
I'd much rather see consumers put pressure on stores to voluntarily enforce age-related purchasing restrictions. If a store declines to do this, then consumers have the option of attempting to persuade the business to do so via a PR campaign or a public boycott, or simply taking their business elsewhere. If enough of the public agrees with this position, then the persuasion will likely encourage a change in policy - all without government intervention. Many stores have already adopted this policy voluntarily.
I have no problem with stores setting their own rules, and I have no problem with individuals or groups putting pressure on stores to adopt a policy more to their liking. But getting the government involved is a step that has to be considered much more carefully. Just because one opposes government involvement in this matter doesn't mean that one thinks sales of mature video games to children is a good thing.
...but the fact that people in capitalist societies still use MS despite knowing perfectly well what they are getting themselves into is more their own fault than MS's. What exactly are is a company getting themselves into by buying MS Office?From a pragmatic standpoint: They are getting an extremely popular software suite created by a profitable corporation that they'll have no trouble contracting support or training for. As a bonus, it will be the most compatible with what their clients and partners are using (by virtue of it's dominance in the marketplace). This hardly seems like a risky proposition for a business.
I have no excess love for Microsoft and their strong arm tactics, but some sort of conspiracy theory about how Microsoft is going to somehow lock you out of your data (I mean, it's not like you can't export most documents to text or RTF) is going to turn off more users than an honest discussion about how an alternative product might be a better investment for a company.
Funny, he didn't mention that he "wrote" the book in HTML, just that he "published" it in HTML. I can publish my book to HTML, PNG, text, paper, Braile, and Morse Code. It doesn't make that an appropriate universal document format though.
Look, I agree with his derision of MS and their hypocritical format games. But he really should have known where to quit. The specifications are just binary dumps with brackets around them? I think he stretches his credibility a bit there.
No one seems to mention the fact that this guy bought his machines for a gaming center. This places those machines in a whole different category of use than a home user (longer hours, rougher treatment, etc). Someone already mentioned dirty power as a likely culprit. We also notice from reading the article that his gaming center has shut down - impending lawsuit? We only have his word that three of the machines were "personal use only". I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the failure rate is under 10%. Would anyone like to calculate the odds of someone getting 7 out of 7 failed machines given that (probably overestimated) failure rate?
All in all, it just doesn't add up. Maybe I'm too skeptical for my own good, but I'm just having a hard time buying this. The fact that I personally know a quite a few people (at least a couple of dozen, including myself) with perfectly operational 360s - (a number of them launch units) with no failures so far further fuels my doubting nature.
It's not just Japanese companies that miss the big picture regarding group dynamics.
At a multi-studio game company I worked for a few years ago, I was part of a successful new studio that got broken up in part because they wanted to redistribute our personnel. Ironically, we ended up being victims of our own success. The management got it into their head that they could improve the overall quality of the other studios by breaking up our groups and redistributing it throughout the company.
Still, it wasn't all bad, as this helped motivate me to find a new job at a much better company.
...Sure, that's blaming the victim, but in this case the user is victimizing themselves.... If they can't be bothered to do the most basic research, screw 'em... Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Allowing the masses to get hacked makes the Internet a worse place for everyone.Believe it or not, I believe the game industry is actually growing up. Losing your life to the almighty schedule was the accepted norm a few years ago, but not so much today. I actually know of publishers routinely scheduling six-day workweeks for the latter half of the project, and seven-day workweeks for the final month or two.
This is an issue I actually talked with my current employer about during the hiring process. I've now worked at a pretty well-known studio for the couple of years, and have shipped two successful games. So far, I'm still working normal 40-hour work weeks, except for the few weeks before and after the ship data (after because it's online). And so far, I have yet to come in on a weekend.
The company was founded by guys who were tired of the burn at other companies and wanted to make sure theirs was not like that. Lots of our devs have families and young kids, and it's a great working atmosphere. And, we're *still* very productive. Many companies are starting to understand it's just not worth burning out your talent and losing them for the sake of a single title.
For anyone looking for a job in the industry... don't let anyone tell you that everyone in the industry goes through insane crunches. Crunches, yes, but the days of mandatory death-marches are fast disappearing. Many developers love to brag about how many hours they worked during the end days of a project (guess it's the game developer equivalent of a war story), but I'm no longer impressed. Putting up with that kind of a nightmare is just foolish at best, and destructive at worst.
He makes some good points (especially #7), but some others are just off the charts.
Maybe a better question is (if we're indeed interested in bringing Linux to the masses): How can we create an installer that makes it impossible to mess up a Linux installation? or... Can we create a configuration utility that is flexible enough to easily alter anything we don't particularly like about the default installation?
Oddly enough, I find that most companies that I do business with serve me very well and quite courteously. The biggest motivation for them is the simple fact that I can choose another company if I am not satisfied with their services. When this motivation is taken away by virtue of a monopoly or near-monopoly, the service becomes much worse. The closer to a pure monopoly, in fact, the worse the service. The problem with the government as an exclusive service provider is that it instantly becomes a monopoly, and therefor has no direct incentive to provide better service. Voting can mitigate this somewhat, but because there is no direct competition, the government can never "lose business" no matter how appalling the service or the product.
A critical of government, IMO, is to be a watchdog over the corporations (ala Enron), as simply losing a job or going out of business is not sufficient deterrant or punishment for some crimes or infractions. And, there are some situations where a company's policies could have potentially devastating results for an individual, and so need regulation (banking, insurance, health care). But we really get into trouble when the government tries to start running the whole show.
Now they don't have to waste dollars competing against each other. Instead, they can focus on competing against traditional radio and podcasts+mp3 players. And, this allows them to pool technology and resources. Economics of scale, and all that.
When the US trades with or invests in some third world country, we're accused of exploitation. When we have nothing to do with a country (ala trade embargo), we're accused of interfering with their economic development.
Note - I actually agree with you. The embargo is a stupid and dated idea. At this point, though, the US might as well wait for Castro to croak. It would be a good time to offer an olive branch without the US government appearing as waffling on its pro-democracy commitments around the world (and hopefully soothing the Cuban population of the US a bit, which is vehemently anti-Castro).
...plastered with jesus fish and republican bumper stickers, and driven by an 85 pound woman chatting away on her cell phone... Ah, I see... so Christians, Republicans, women, and cell-phone users shouldn't drive SUVs? Funny enough, that describes my sister-in-law, who uses her SUV for regular trips with her husband and two kids over a very high mountain pass to visit her parents. It's a 6 hour trip, and an SUV is the safest and most comfortable way to travel. My brother drives to work in an old rice-burner, which is nice and fuel efficient, but they would have a hard time affording a third car just for her shorter commutes. If you knew them at all, you'd know the last thing in the world they're interested in is a status symbol.I hear the argument you make so many times, and yes, some people probably don't need those cars. But there are plenty of people out there for whom an SUV is a practical vehicle. Where I live (Seattle), there are TONS of opportunities to make use of one of those vehicles for towing boats, driving up to or over mountains, etc, etc. Sorry if your life is so sedentary, but not everyone lives (or thinks) the same way you do.
Unfortunately, most company legal departments would *never* allow anything vaguely entertaining such as a skewered Pillsbury doughboy in the game. I recall a recent postmortem article in Game Developer magazine... the writer described how their legal department nixed an *invented* restaurant name because they feared it was too common and likely to be used by some restaurant in real life.
That's the current legal climate of business today. Tort reform, anyone?
Regarding car culture as social engineering: in this case, there was no outside influence - the society itself wished to embrace this, and the capitalist engine of our society was more than happy to provide the means to do so. I consider capitalism (and by extension, advertisement and consumerism) to be an integral part of our society, and so wouldn't consider it to be social engineering in the classical sense. I'd probably describe it as a natural social evolution.
Hopefully this clarifies what I meant - just that the force required to alter a society's behavior always has the inherent danger of eroding liberty, and thus should be used cautiously.
In general, mankind's attempt at science-based engineering has proven far more successful and reliable than attempts to "engineer" societies.
I'm perfectly willing to let the market make those decisions for us. At the moment, it seems willing to support multiple competing platforms, which is the absolute best thing for consumers.
And ultimately, where does some monolithic "standard" leave the possibility of innovation in hardware? Would Nintendo have been able to produce a small, inexpensive, and innovative console like the Wii by adhering to some standard? I sort of doubt it. It's fine to have standards for CD or DVD playback. But for games, I'll take innovation over standards anyday.
...and laid their proverbial dick on the table for all the public to see. I'd like to keep an anti-DRM stance as a "good thing" in my mind. Your analogy is not helping.Wikipedia can't reasonably be the repository of all human knowledge. At a certain point, the storage costs exceed the usefulness to the general public. It's just a matter of practicality. I have a feeling that Wikipedia would simply collapse under it's own weight if it were flooded with a significant portion of the world's minutia / trivia.
Besides, nowadays, it shouldn't be too hard to look up the name of a specific school - just Google it. What information would Wikipedia provide that a direct link to the school's home page couldn't provide?
DOOM 3 is a great example of a game that, to its detriment, focused way too much on technological prowess and neglected solid game design. (i.e. can't use flashlight and gun at the same time, an entire game of enemies magically appearing behind you, etc)
Every game I've worked on (I'm a programmer, not a designer btw) had a critical need of a designer to shape the direction, design all the missions, tweak all the numbers (skills, weapons, spells, enemies, items, rewards, etc), and ensure the game is balanced and fun to play. Yes, some designers were better than others - just like any other profession.
Does it make more sense to have your more expensive programmers or artists doing this sort of work? That makes no sense to me, although I have heard of companies leaning in this direction. The problem with this approach is that not every artist or programmer really has the sensibilities or desire to design the game as well as working on their specific craft. I've known a number of both artists and programmers like this. They work very well when they have specific and well-defined task, but tend to stumble a bit when given more ambiguous tasks.
I'd suggest that games probably cost 60 bucks because the market has determined that this is the optimal price point for maximizing profits, given the content and development costs of a AAA title versus the standard market size, not because game makers pay for designers.