Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Outside of Valve I don't think many developers. (Score 1) 78

by doctor woot (#47439367) Attached to: What Happens When Gaming Auteurs Try To Go It Alone?

Some games aren't necessarily built around win/lose conditions. Some games are sandlot building games.

You're talking in circles.

54 million in sales says that you aren't representative of everyone.

Irrelevant.

/I/ had literally hundreds of hours of enjoyable gameplay from my $15 purchase. By far one of my best ever game purchases.

Well I am very happy for you.

Comment: Re:Outside of Valve I don't think many developers. (Score 1) 78

by doctor woot (#47438645) Attached to: What Happens When Gaming Auteurs Try To Go It Alone?

You can make a city as elaborate as you like, it does nothing to determine your success as far as the game's win/lose conditions are concerned. It's just dicking around, the gameplay itself is incredibly unimpressive. Dwarf Fortress, by comparison, actually does involve the designs the player manages to come up with directly in determining their success or failure, and is by far the better game.

Comment: Re:Outside of Valve I don't think many developers. (Score 1) 78

by doctor woot (#47438555) Attached to: What Happens When Gaming Auteurs Try To Go It Alone?

Actually I hadn't even considered Portal. It's an entertaining game but offers a rather narrow difficulty curve.

I don't really care if a game is linear or not, infinite spawns, etc. All that really matters is what options the game puts in the player's hands and how well opportunities presented by those options are exploited by the game itself. I think the game could have been improved in a number of ways (in particular, the acceleration curves found throughout the game were awkward. Vehicle sections could have tested a player's attention to detail, instead you just awkwardly flop from point A to B. Rockets also seemed random but this i s a minor point.) but in general it was solidly designed, particularly with regards to weapon diversity and how each affected your positioning and timing in each engagement.

Valve knows how to find skilled developers and put them in an environment in which they can be creative but still focused. Dota 2, CS:GO, Left 4 Dead, these games show a lot of attention to detail while being embellished by unobtrusive fluff.

Comment: Re:Outside of Valve I don't think many developers. (Score 1) 78

by doctor woot (#47435581) Attached to: What Happens When Gaming Auteurs Try To Go It Alone?

> Outside of Valve I don't think many developers ... pay enough attention to game design to consistently produce quality games

That's because a game is too dependent on Art + Tech. You can have the world's greatest designer but if they don't understand how to capitalize on Tech & Art _tailored_ for their project you're dead in the water.

There are few Game Designers that are recognized as delivering the goods. Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto, Will Wright, etc. How many of these game designers do the general public even know??

I don't see how that matters, the point is games are homogenized for the sake of market friendliness.

> Games are an awkward state of limbo these days,

AAA games maybe, but not indie.

Okay.

Content creation costs are spiraling out of control.

Why did you bold that and then not follow up on it

People are getting fed up with grind-for-gear ooh shiny with shallow gameplay.

Minecraft just reach 54 million across all platforms.
https://twitter.com/pgeuder/st...

Well that's a contradictory statement if I've ever seen one.

Comment: Outside of Valve I don't think many developers.... (Score 5, Insightful) 78

by doctor woot (#47434929) Attached to: What Happens When Gaming Auteurs Try To Go It Alone?

...pay enough attention to game design to consistently produce quality games. Not that they can't, mind you, but it seems pretty clear to me that game devs tend to have their attention split between designing a game's mechanics and appealing to a broad audience. You end up with a game that isn't too far afield of what you tend to see these days, but that tries to compensate by having gameplay features designed to be marketed as 'innovative' and conducive to creative and emergent gameplay. A good example is Watch Dogs, marketed as a game centered around hacking but designed as a GTA clone with a hacking gimmick.

Games are an awkward state of limbo these days, publishers know they have to start pushing out the impression of creativity and devs try to figure out how to do that without alienating the average player. The mentality sticks, and developers everywhere end up glossing over technical details, focusing instead on the impression a game will make.

Comment: Re:This idea isn't ludicrous, it's sensible (Score 1) 86

Exclusivity deals aren't a problem either. This strategy is not hidden from consumers, as in the case of, say, a manufacturer lowering the quality of the materials in their products while taking steps to maintain the appearance of the former product. In this case consumer consent is necessary, the opportunity to obfuscate facts is not presented from the idea in question. The information consumers use in assessing whether the product is worth the cost goes unaffected.

Comment: This idea isn't ludicrous, it's sensible (Score 4, Interesting) 86

Gamestop is depending on a market with idiosyncratic practices. These practices may themselves seem strange or senseless, but if one is to take these as cultural shortcomings then the fault lies with the consumer, not Gamestop. This is an industry where the cozy relationship between critics and publishers is no secret, where being excited regarding an event consisting entirely of three days of advertisements is considered normal. If this idea seems exploitative, it's only because they're serving a demographic that wants to be exploited.

Comment: Re:Is this for real? (Score 1) 208

by doctor woot (#46067969) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Educating Kids About Older Technologies?

Since when does somebody have to justify their premise to ask for advice?

This isn't asking for advice, this is forwarding an argument (" I think not being aware of the science behind such yesteryear technologies (or their histories) is not right.") without giving any reason as to why. You would think something posted alongside articles on current events including international politics and advances in science, engineering and medicine, on a site with "News for nerds, stuff that matters" as the tagline would be a bit more substantial.

To say it's worthwhile to teach kids about old technology is to presuppose that they'll even benefit from such effort in any way (preferably at least somewhat proportionate to the amount of time they're made to invest) but if your kid wants to become a dancer, a musician, a novelist, a racing driver, a sculptor, a composer, etc. etc. there are far better ways to allow them to explore their own creativity than forcing them to sit in front of a bench with wires and batteries.

Had the author of this article (paragraph) put any effort into procuring supporting details beyond "I think" I might have felt differently. But given the laziness with which the subject was approached, I find little reason to regard this question as anything more than a waste of time.

Comment: Is this for real? (Score 2) 208

by doctor woot (#46067041) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Educating Kids About Older Technologies?

I feel it would be most beneficial to encourage kids to explore old technologies and perhaps even try simple simulations at home or school. So, what websites or videos or other sources of information would you reach out to that teaches the basics of say, telegraphy? Or, signalling in railways? Etc. etc."

Seriously? That's it? Just "I think" without even an attempt at justifying that statement? What difference would it make in a kid's life to learn about older technology?

It's already hard enough to get kids interested in education, and adults pushing their ideas of what's important onto young students with no regards as to the relevance the "education" bears to the kids' lives is why. If I ever have kids I'm leaving it up to them to decide what they find interesting, and will do whatever I can to educate them on it, even if it means I have to learn a bit about it myself. I certainly wouldn't force my kids to learn about something as arbitrary as older technology.

Comment: Re:Tried playing this game (Score 2) 218

by doctor woot (#46042769) Attached to: Celebrating Dungeons & Dragons' 40th Anniversary

That's a shame, computers are largely limited to what the coder who wrote a piece of software came up with, which, if you're imaginative and have played a tabletop RPG, you'll find ends up missing an awful lot. That's why tabletop RPGs find a wide audience to this day, they give you the flexibility to do what you want even when what you want to do isn't covered by the rules explicitly. In the majority of computer RPGs out there, if what you want to do isn't covered by the rules, tough shit. Either mod it (which does little to sidestep the issue of complexity) or hope someone else does.

Besides, any half-decent roleplaying group will assist you in learning the rules and getting a hang of things. After just a few hours you stop getting confused by stat sheets and the like.

Message from Our Sponsor on ttyTV at 13:58 ...

Working...