In my limited understanding I would expect the energy/maintenance needs of such a network be a tremendous drain on resources over time for potentially no benefit? I suppose the technology that comes out of the consequential research and development may better serve humanity, but using it expressly for financial purposes sounds like a misadventure.
Seeing as I'm about to graduate from CS with a minor in Math, the thing that I find funny is that there is so much focus on "results" and so little attention to process, particularly when it comes to learning.
That being said, the biggest gripe I have with math in the classroom is the reliance by instructors and authors on readers to just "get" what is being taught; textbooks that provide one or two examples and assignments far beyond what the text really offers, or make the assumption that every reader is going to reflexively make all the intuitive leaps needed to get to the solution, and a correct one at that.
Hey, I understand wanting to pass only the people who are willing to work hard to succeed, but right now the "system" makes people work hard for the wrong reasons. I can't say that I see Wolfram Alpha help the problem I outlined--it's a step sideward, really. At least now we can check our work? haha.
Why is it that game developers feel the need to call their games a killer of some kind? Ironically, I've only heard this expression used in conjunction with the FPS genre.
As far as I can tell, no better game has ever truly killed the great game that came in line before it...and more often than not those games that are truly great are fondly remembered years down the line--for me, nothing will ever replace the experience of playing Team Fortress for the original quake, in its pixelated and later GLQuake glory:P
That's part of the charm Deus Ex had though, and it runs a bit deeper than that. What you decribed was the experience of finding out that the character (you) are no longer on the side of the fence you had started on. In terms of good and evil, that was better characterized by the way you accomplished the various tasks in the game. For instance, depending on whether or not you actually killed anyone in the first stage of the game, the response to your actions was different at the end of the level.
I'm impressed.
I mean, he way he talks about short-sighted, you'd think the guy didn't work for a company that's gonna be several hundred thousand PS3s behind!
Could a mod set the reply to plain old text formatting, if possible? First post and I missed the option...hopefully it will retrieve the carriage returns properly.
*I exclude any particular consideration of the MMO sector here since I'm not familiar enough with them to really talk about them beyond an abstract*
This is mostly just observation and opinion, but...people are fickle. What they liked yesterday may change today, and vice versa.
Furthermore, growth in the number of casual gamers appears a lot higher relative to that of hardcore gamers--and while some casual gamers may make that transition, I don't see it making any particularly significant difference as far as the market is concerned. While I don't have an adequate definition for either type of gamer (even though I am one myself), one characteristic of the casual gamer is that to him/her, games are primarily entertainment, socially or otherwise.--being skilled is secondary to enjoyment of the game (though it probably helps, haha).
This creates a few problems: A hardcore gamer probably appreciates a game for the game more than the casual gamer, and is willing to put up with its flaws in exchange for the total experience. A casual gamer--not so much so. If it doesn't look good to them, they'll walk. If it's tough to figure out, they'll walk. If it's a chore or too difficult to play, they'll walk. I know, because I've been gradually making that transition from hardcore to casual now that I'm in college and trying to....well, live.
From the casual gamer's perspective, my time and tolerances are limited, and thus I am that much more interested in saving my time and money for the experience I'm looking for. Not that this means I know what I want, just that I'm looking to buy from the someone that's holding out on me. Thus, developers (and their backers, and publishers by association) have a harder job of competing for my attention. Unlike athletes who generate revenue for their team and are paid huge sums of money even while on the injured list, there is no such guarantee for developers, whose budgets and costs continue to grow with time.
And they know this. Publishers want titles that will sell, developers want to make games (driven by one reason or another) and the companies backing developer studios want their developers working on the games that publishers want to put on the shelves. On a budget, wtih deadlines and "required" features bases on what their marketing and publisher marketing thinks will sell, etc...
So, you have developers that want to make the game they want to work on. Publishers, developers, and investors who want the game to be a game that they are pretty sure will make them money, therefore companies want to tell developers what kind of game to make, and gamers expecting companies (developers) and publishers to provide them with the game they want (even though they don't know what they want or even what they consider acceptable). Given all the interaction that takes place between these parties and the money being thrown around to make a game happen, it's no wonder that that things are the way they are.
But here's the thing: If anything is going to change, then something has to give. What will it be?
A: Gamers become more open to experimental and/or somewhat faulty games, particularly the newer and generally casual crowds.
B-C: Publishers become more willing to take more risks with the kinds of games they'll take on so that companies might give developers more freedom.
D: Everyone could relax on riding the technological wave, allowing developers to use technology and tools they're already familiar with instead of expecting them to create and utilize new ones "just because they're there" -- reducing costs as a side effect.
I hardly think the list is all inclusive, but the point I'm trying to make with all of this is that there are issues at every link in the consumer chain which contribute in some way to the current state of affairs. And...I think I may have lost track somewhere along the way so hopefully I'm making some sense:P
Slashdot Mirror
In my limited understanding I would expect the energy/maintenance needs of such a network be a tremendous drain on resources over time for potentially no benefit? I suppose the technology that comes out of the consequential research and development may better serve humanity, but using it expressly for financial purposes sounds like a misadventure.
Seeing as I'm about to graduate from CS with a minor in Math, the thing that I find funny is that there is so much focus on "results" and so little attention to process, particularly when it comes to learning. That being said, the biggest gripe I have with math in the classroom is the reliance by instructors and authors on readers to just "get" what is being taught; textbooks that provide one or two examples and assignments far beyond what the text really offers, or make the assumption that every reader is going to reflexively make all the intuitive leaps needed to get to the solution, and a correct one at that. Hey, I understand wanting to pass only the people who are willing to work hard to succeed, but right now the "system" makes people work hard for the wrong reasons. I can't say that I see Wolfram Alpha help the problem I outlined--it's a step sideward, really. At least now we can check our work? haha.
Why is it that game developers feel the need to call their games a killer of some kind? Ironically, I've only heard this expression used in conjunction with the FPS genre. As far as I can tell, no better game has ever truly killed the great game that came in line before it...and more often than not those games that are truly great are fondly remembered years down the line--for me, nothing will ever replace the experience of playing Team Fortress for the original quake, in its pixelated and later GLQuake glory :P
That's part of the charm Deus Ex had though, and it runs a bit deeper than that. What you decribed was the experience of finding out that the character (you) are no longer on the side of the fence you had started on. In terms of good and evil, that was better characterized by the way you accomplished the various tasks in the game. For instance, depending on whether or not you actually killed anyone in the first stage of the game, the response to your actions was different at the end of the level.
I'm impressed. I mean, he way he talks about short-sighted, you'd think the guy didn't work for a company that's gonna be several hundred thousand PS3s behind!
Could a mod set the reply to plain old text formatting, if possible? First post and I missed the option...hopefully it will retrieve the carriage returns properly.
*I exclude any particular consideration of the MMO sector here since I'm not familiar enough with them to really talk about them beyond an abstract* This is mostly just observation and opinion, but...people are fickle. What they liked yesterday may change today, and vice versa. Furthermore, growth in the number of casual gamers appears a lot higher relative to that of hardcore gamers--and while some casual gamers may make that transition, I don't see it making any particularly significant difference as far as the market is concerned. While I don't have an adequate definition for either type of gamer (even though I am one myself), one characteristic of the casual gamer is that to him/her, games are primarily entertainment, socially or otherwise.--being skilled is secondary to enjoyment of the game (though it probably helps, haha). This creates a few problems: A hardcore gamer probably appreciates a game for the game more than the casual gamer, and is willing to put up with its flaws in exchange for the total experience. A casual gamer--not so much so. If it doesn't look good to them, they'll walk. If it's tough to figure out, they'll walk. If it's a chore or too difficult to play, they'll walk. I know, because I've been gradually making that transition from hardcore to casual now that I'm in college and trying to....well, live. From the casual gamer's perspective, my time and tolerances are limited, and thus I am that much more interested in saving my time and money for the experience I'm looking for. Not that this means I know what I want, just that I'm looking to buy from the someone that's holding out on me. Thus, developers (and their backers, and publishers by association) have a harder job of competing for my attention. Unlike athletes who generate revenue for their team and are paid huge sums of money even while on the injured list, there is no such guarantee for developers, whose budgets and costs continue to grow with time. And they know this. Publishers want titles that will sell, developers want to make games (driven by one reason or another) and the companies backing developer studios want their developers working on the games that publishers want to put on the shelves. On a budget, wtih deadlines and "required" features bases on what their marketing and publisher marketing thinks will sell, etc... So, you have developers that want to make the game they want to work on. Publishers, developers, and investors who want the game to be a game that they are pretty sure will make them money, therefore companies want to tell developers what kind of game to make, and gamers expecting companies (developers) and publishers to provide them with the game they want (even though they don't know what they want or even what they consider acceptable). Given all the interaction that takes place between these parties and the money being thrown around to make a game happen, it's no wonder that that things are the way they are. But here's the thing: If anything is going to change, then something has to give. What will it be? A: Gamers become more open to experimental and/or somewhat faulty games, particularly the newer and generally casual crowds. B-C: Publishers become more willing to take more risks with the kinds of games they'll take on so that companies might give developers more freedom. D: Everyone could relax on riding the technological wave, allowing developers to use technology and tools they're already familiar with instead of expecting them to create and utilize new ones "just because they're there" -- reducing costs as a side effect. I hardly think the list is all inclusive, but the point I'm trying to make with all of this is that there are issues at every link in the consumer chain which contribute in some way to the current state of affairs. And...I think I may have lost track somewhere along the way so hopefully I'm making some sense :P