Gian-Reto

Members
  • Content count

    1462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7071 Excellent

About Gian-Reto

  • Rank
    Contributor

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Art
    Design
    Production
    Programming
  1. Dr. Steamlove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Review Bomb

    I think you make the whole event look way too much like Camo Santo are the good guys here. They are not. They are also not the bad guys... that dubious title, despite all the controversy, has to go to Pewdiepie. After all, what he said MIGHT not have been meant as a racial slur at the time... but he should know better, he probably knows better, and as people have pointed out, when that is the worst word that come to mind when trashtalking online, it shows at least a severly eroded sense of morality from too much exposure to the worst of online gaming. Campo Santo on the other hand. Holy ****. Their Twitter breakdown (or the one of one of their guys) was definitely over 9000. Talk about Virtue Signalling taken to the extreme. Stupid and childish, if you ask me. I understand not being happy about Pewdiepie shining a bad light on all of gaming. I understand a snark Twitter comment. After all, twitter is the highnoon battlearea for word gunslingers and virtue warriors to fight their silly online fights, and create some online drama to fuel 50% of youtubes ecosystem. But abusing the DCMA System is a pretty vile act in itself. So really, I have zero sympathy for Campo Santo. They got what they deserved for their twitter drama post. Am I really being supportive of review bombs here? No, that is a stupid, destructive act in itself. But lets be real here. The audience is not the problem. The players are not the most toxic community on this planet. Don't act like an ***, and they will generally stick to talking badly about your game in forums because you have created a walking simulator, a casual game or some virtue signalling artsy award winning game. As much as the gamer community can be toxic, few people will be so openly hostile that the mere existence of something they don't like will make them go ballistic. But what Campo Santo did was, in my eyes, baiting. They wanted to be attacked, they wanted to be victims. Now they are riding the victim train. Good luck on your journey. In the end, we have 3 bad guys, and no real victim here. PewDiePie deserved what was coming his way for not being careful, Campo Santo got exactly what they wanted if they were baiting or what they deserved if they were stupid enough to type on twitter before thinking about it, and as for the review bombers... they are also no heros. Consumer activism should be done through voting with their wallets. Newer ever buy anything from Campo Santo again... that in my eyes is the only acceptable reaction to twitter stupidity. Everything else makes them victims, like this and many similar articles have proven. EDIT: And if you are not a customer of campo santo... well tough luck. You have no say in it anyway then. If you cannot vote with your wallet because you didn't buy Firewatch, or any future Campo Santo product in the first place... maybe just calm down, and ignore the Twitter trolls instead of review bombing and firing back on Twitter or youtube, feeding the online hate train. As to not just review bombing this article, lets give a constructive review: 1. You are trying to make an opinion piece look like a neutral article. I think that is doing the actual factual discussion, the review bombing, a disservice. By bringing up Campo Santos twitter drama and PewDiePies racial slur incident, you are not really discussing the actual topic at hand. There are like 100 other incidents of review bombing you could have used. 95% of those probably are unusable because the game in question deserves the vitriol. Even so, I guess there must be some artsy game somewhere that got review bombed just for existing without any shady AAA anti-consumer stunt, or a terrible game justifying the anger, if not the act. The Campo Santo incident on the other hand has some very justified anger behind it, in the aftermath of the 2013 incidents that shall not be named. 2. You are feeding into anti-gamer rethoric. That is a very, very unhealthy development sadly now also picked up by the AAA industry after their anti-consumer business got bad enough for the general gaming community to wake up to it. While I do think voting with their wallet is what consumers should do... in the end, the consumer is always right. I do support clamping down on frivolous review bombing, but lets be real here. Some people in the AAA industry and some Indies will ALWAYS put the blame on consumers, because else they cannot accept they are to blame themselves. Supporting that kind of stance is only going to increase animosity coming from the other side. 3. You try to put pressure on Steam when Steam seems to have the most healthy stance when it comes to such online drama compared to most of the industry... to simply ignore it. Because at the end of the day, if virtue signallers like Campo Santo and some media wouldn't keep it alive for months, the original mess around Felix would have died down quickly. Maybe (hopefully) he would have apologized either way. The gamer side of the internet wouldn't be up in arms about another incident of what made them go mad years back in the first place. Review bombing wouldn't have happened. Gave you 3 stars because the article is less about the topic in the title, and more about your opinion.
  2. Atari purchase question.

    Weeeell.... Sony seems to have relaxed MANY of these constraints.... These games being released on PSN are the proof of this: Sony seems so desperate to loose out on ANY Indie darling that they seem to flog those devkits to anyone willing to put a game out on PSN. So if there ever was a time to get a game on the Playstation as a small time Indie without much expierience and no prior game under your belt, now is the time. I guess you still have to be lucky and probably need to lie about what your project actually is and your expierience though. Don't think Sony was actually presented with a truthful project plan for the games shown above, nor was the developer probably saying the truth about his "secure facilities" or financial situation (well, probably there wasn't much to finance anyway). Neither of these devs will probably put another game on the PSN... EDIT: Maybe I was sounding somewhat harsh above. Well, if these games were free games distributed on the internet, developed by beginners I would say "good job! Your game compiles and is playable without errors" (which they have to be AFAIK to pass sonys certification). These are sold for 15 bucks on a professional storefront. And from the looks of it, they are clearly not the work of a professional. So clearly, Sonys standards are not what they used to be.
  3. Anyone going to see Bladerunner 2049 at the flicks?

    The Trailers looked great, the Anime Short Prequel was visually stunning, with a good story (if not great, can't really get a great story out of such a short anime when you are so busy with its presentation)... I think I will take the risk and see the movie in theaters, if only to get more of the visuals on the big screen in 3D.
  4. The future of VR Gaming and if Nerve Gear was real

    1. As soon as you "leave the couch" (replace with "leave the office chair" for PC gaming), you get into the areas of "tiring activities". Yes, you can run for hours... if you are physically fit and really ready to put up with all the sweat and time investment to get physically fit. Yes, as soon as you get into "nervegear territory" and no longer need to move your body - you shortcut the brain to see a "different reality" and sever the connection to your physical body - you are no longer really in need of physical fitness... but you can bet that the expierience would be REALLY mentally tiring. You also will start to encounter new phenomenas that would make you probably not want to live through realistic shooter expieriences or horrorgames in a VR game that is indistinguishable from reality... SOA alludes to it (if it was a better series, it would do way more than just show it in short burst at the beginning to then go back to a boring story about teenage love and a mary sue character). You would probably get into the area of PTSD being induced by your horrific VR war scenarios, or psychosis triggered by to real horror games. Really, for most soldiers its not a question IF they develop a posttraumatic stress disorder... the question is how long it takes until they can no longer function in a warzone... or, even worse, normal society. Yes, there are people that can avoid that. They are mostly psychopaths. You are born with it. And you probably will end up in jail or dead, if you don't hide it well (and become rich and famous thanks to our current society being the ideal playground for psychopaths that can play by the law). You probably can make all kind of interesting and cool alternative reality expieriences... they will be quite boring after a while, and resemble real life pretty close (you know, the game with awesome graphics but really crappy content)... unless our world has gone to shit until then, the question remains "why even bother?".... You can probably make some high adrenaline scenarios resembling current action games that are really exciting and immersive. But you only ever want to consume it in very short bursts, because they might be physically taxing, and they almost certainly will be mentally distressing. 2. I am not getting into the "WHY???" when it comes to your quite out there numbers of NPCs and stuff to simulate... lets just say when it is hard to create HUNDREDS of NPCs that are not an indistinguishable mess, billions of NPCs randomly generated would be just pointlessly same-ish. Might as well create one thousand and copy and paste them to the world, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The human mind, at its best, can keep track of maybe 100 other human beings on a personal level. Everyone beyond that is just part of a number in a statistics. By the time you meet your 101st NPC for example you will not care anymore, or you start to forget about your first NPC (or probably your tenth, the first might staying in your mind longer) you met in the game. But now I do get into the why... so lets get back on track. No, Quantum computing will probably not help. Unless you want to "simulate" your billion of NPCs in a very simple way. Name, age, height, thats it. As soon as they should actually have a simulated "life" of any real depth, you will need an array of Processors beyond what any supercomputer in the world has, even with some shiny new quantum computing tech that REALLY delivers on the hyperbole (and as usual, the reality will never live up to the hype). You probably waste billions of dollars on the hardware and hefty sum in needed energy each month just to run a coarse simulation for a billion boring virtual lifes. Again, probably not worth it beyond the "for the heck of it" science e-peen. Getting back to the "WHY???" I wanted to avoid: As fun as pokemon might be on a smaller scale, there are only so many randomly generated pokemons you can create before you have seen it all... there are just so many NPCs you can cram into a VR World before they start blend together into a boring mass of "meh!". I think the draw of the current AR pokemon craze is the AR part. The fact that pokemons are hidden in the real world (and the thrill of being in danger of falling down the cliffside with permadeath). For one, it is questionable what a simulated world to replace the already highdef realworld would really add to that game, when you can just omit crunching a whole lot of data by using what is already there. Especially with a game like pokemon, that does not rely on highdef graphics to sell itself, thus the AR discrepancy between simulated pokemon and real world is not really that much of a problem. Expecially with a game that is a collectathlon with most of the "garnish" of other games removed (yes, you can have monster fights with your collectable items... yes there is an actual game world to collect the items in. Compared to other games that layer IMO is pretty thin). As much as a SOA like Virtual world sound awesome, as much as you could build really fantastic and exciting worlds... there is only so much the human brain can take, and what is awesome and exciting in short burst for 80 hours becomes boring and dreary once you hit the 1000 hour mark. Yes, there are the WoW addicts... but these people are wasting way too much time in a virtual world for a reason... mostly they have trouble with the real world (maybe social anxiety problems and stuff like this), or other addiction problems. Are they happy in their alternate reality.... hell, yes, I guess they have to get something out of it. I would be the last one to judge people for wasting all their free time in a virtual reality... as long as they still work for a living, that is. But the general mass audience will probably never stick around for that long in a world that starts to resemble the real world as soon as the novelty of the fantasy / sci-fi setting wears off, and the handcrafted content is used up... procgen random quests and worlds and items will start to bore them quickly. As long as your real world situation is not really shitty for one reason or another, of course. If our realworld turns into a dystopia, the VR world might be the better alternative. The really interesting case study is rather Second life than AR Pokemon, or Sci-Fi stuff like SOA. As soon as the virtual world can be used for more than entertainment, it might be able to tie people to the virtual reality for longer. If you can work in VR, socialize in VR and, yes, play for a short time in VR, people might actually start "living" in the VR world the same way some addicts do nowadays in some MMO games. Will this be for the better or worse of society? Will it be anywhere near as fantastic as the hype makes you believe, or in the end just a pedestrian as most other new technology when it finally arrives? Who knows. But I think a little bit moderation of expectation instead of overblown hype is in order at this stage.
  5. How do you balance gaming and game dev?

    Besides trouble with "suspension of disbelief" when you know where to look for the strings that move the puppets... shouldn't that make it more enjoyable to play (good) games when you know how damn hard it is to create a game of that quality? There is a ton of things wrong with Horizon Zero Dawn which I am still playing (slipped back into my old compleetionist ways) on the graphics side once you see it in motion... I mean, the PS4 Pro powering it struggles to keep up with my old GTX 670 in my HTPC when it comes to raw power AFAIK. But boy, is it impressive what Guerrilla games got out of that weak little box when you glance over the occasional artefacts and problems. Buttery smooth framerate, gorgeous visuals to an unbelievable far away draw distance and all that. Yes I know most of it is smoke and mirrors given the measly 4 TFlops of AMD graphics powering it. But that makes the feat even more impressive in my mind. And sometimes I just forget to think about how they might have achieved it and just take in the grand vistas like a normal player would. Now I would really be interested to see how HZD looks on the PS4 Old with its even weaker 1.8 TFlops of power. I guess there is more stuttering, and some effects might be toned down. I guess I would be even more impressed when it looks almost as good because I know how damn hard it must have been to get the game running like this on this hardware. I think there ARE Problems with things like this... some things loose their magic when you overanalyze it. Happened to me as soon as I saw through the weapon generation system of Borderlands 2... which in my mind was a big step back from Borderlands 1. Before "getting it" it looked fine and all, besides the weapons you get for a specific manufacturer being very samey, and the difference in power between rarities being quite steep... after "you got it", the whole thing looked no longer like "2 billion of guns"... rather like 1 optimum per manufacturer and the rest being just crap you throw away as soon as something better comes up. That ruined Borderlands 2 for me... well, that and the fact Gearbox had to go and "mainstreamify" a raw diamond, loosing much of its charm in the process. Still, analyzing the weapon system and realizing just how limiting it was broke the camels back for me. The difference for me in this 2 examples is this: Guerilla games ticks all the boxes by getting the most out of the console hardware... I can appreciate their achievement even more because I have SOME ideas on how it was achieved. I can then try to forget about the strings and try to enjoy the puppet play. Gearbox messed up the system IMO when they changed the most important part of what made borderlands such a hit with fans. I even read an interview with Gearbox lately where they explained how and why they changed the gun generation system and how boy, it gave me solid proof they got it all wrong. They complained about lack of control over the original system. They thought it to be a problem when every enemy would use the weapon they later would drop, giving a chance of a random bandit in the world shooting you with the most awesome orange weapon, and giving you a hard time... when random things like this actually made it EXCITING to come face to face with yet another random goon somewhere out in the woods. Instead of a pointless grind you try to avoid once you found out they have no loot you are interested in, and you can smash them like a fly thanks to your level and gear now. They saw an issue in some a very strong green weapon being better than a very weak purple. When I guess most players would have found that actually exciting, because now you cannot just throw away a weapon "because its just a green", you have to actually look at it. Most probably they also saw an issue with random hidden effects, because weapons in Borderlands 2 no longer have them. Which made you want to actually equip and use the weapon instead of just stat-comparing it to your existing weapon and throw it away without testing it because its all in the stats. They wanted to give players a safe and authored entertainment when the main draw of the game was the wild and wacky random nature of procgen results. The weapon generation system in Borderlands 2 was fundamentally evolved in the wrong direction in my eyes. Analyzing just made it clearer that Gearbox F***ed it up, something I already had a supsicion from just playing it and never getting really interesting gear once I had the needed purples for my level to keep up. Which ironically you could get from the "Vendor One armed bandit" with save-reload-"cheating", after Gearbox completly neutered new-haven-runs in Borderlands 1 years earlier because people could farm good weapons and epic oranges just from save-reload-"cheating" and farming chests in the new haven town for some hours. Analying the games just emphasizes the good, and the bad. Good games become more enjoyable because you can appreciate the quality more... bad or broken games become worse because you see where the dev messed up exactly... and probably you also can make educated guesses why. EDIT: To be fair, there is plenty wrong with HZD on a gameplay level. Now, that most probably will make sure I will NOT endgame the shit out of this game once the story is over. The setting is compelling enough for me to glance over what I perceive as design issues, and the system is open enough that I can play the game in a way these issues are not constantly rubbed in my face (avoiding close combat for example is entirely possible).
  6. How do you balance gaming and game dev?

    IMO, the big thing with AAA is not that the studios are NOT filled with the same passionate nerds as the Indie studios (though of course chances are higher that these nerds are just doing their job there and are not looking to fullfill their dreams in an AAA studio)... The thing (you could call it a "problem") is that the people making the shots in big AAA studios are either driven by economical factors (shareholders, higher profits, lower risks), are playing it way too safe (which, given you have a big company to feed with many jobs at risk, is a good thing, for the company and devs), or, worst of all, have actually no idea of games and a pretty bad impression of gamers. Many of the execs in game studio are not "gamers", nor are they developing products for their customers. They are trying to generate revenue to feed their shareholders and to bump their own bonus to bigger numbers. Satisfying the customer comes dead last after all the tricks in the books to squeeze more money out of them. Yes, its a business. Even then, a business should serve its clients, not just its shareholders... EDIT: Oh, and lets not forget the exploding budgets. A game costing 500m$ is an impossibly high risk, that HAS to generate billions of $ in return (thus the greedy money grabbing schemes are kind justifiable when you think about it), and that kind of risk will only be taken on very proven concepts (thus leading to endless sequels). Its not ALWAYS the fault of greedy execs when games are underwhelming and overpriced. AAA Game dev on the "cutting edge" is just getting too expensive for 60$ games. These games probably should cost 120$ to start with so they don't have to appeal to everyone and their dog (thus are only overpriced when you apply the rules of games always costing 60$ to them... getting a collectors edition for 120$ with some gadgets, and an extre nice box is good value when the normal price should be around 120$, and having to pay another 60$ in DLC to get the full game is just bumping the price up to the expected 120$), and have to cut all kind of edges to fit into a still too tight budget while delivering an overambitious scope. Its kinda hard to say who is at fault here, its a chicken and egg problem really. One of the reason why so many AAA devs at some point in their career try to go Indie to finally work on a game that isn't just some kind of online casino or try to squeeze the last penny out of players without giving them the awesome play expierience they deserve for that. Its the same thing with the Movie industry, and lucky for us as gamers, there are both the silver linings of new IPs that have something to prove (HZD or the first Borderlands come to mind), or the few lucid moments when bosses realize that "good games sell" *gasp*. Or the times a dev gives a cult classic that was just not good enough for the masses another shot, and nails it (Nier Automata comes to mind). In the end, the problem is not really the bad average quality of AAA games pushed to market today... problem is the stupidity of customers. Preorder Culture and people buying into online moneymaking schemes have made the AAA devs fat and bold to try always new ways to screw their customers, yet some gamers seem unable to learn. Its simple: Never pre-order (unless the dev is a small Indie and the game probably will not happen without kickstarter or paid Beta... ehr... "early access", and you REALLY want to see the game realized), never spend money on F2P games (unless the game gives you the value you expect for the money you invest. Good games should get your money, F2P or not), never buy DLC (unless you get good value for your money again). Never even buy games that chop content off into multiple DLCs (Unless the base game alone is worth your money without the stuff gated behind DLC Paywalls). Give games at least 6 months to ripen in the market and get their release day bugs ironed out. If they do not get ironed out, spend your money on AAA devs that are more professional and actually finish their products they are trying to sell.
  7. How do you balance gaming and game dev?

    I was more responding to the "playing games does not" statement of yours. And making a statement as becoming a PRO PLAYER, not a PRO GAME DEV to make money with playing games. As in e-sports. But agreed, it was a "half troll statment" given the chances of making games with such a career... thus the sentence about the chances of that ever paying the bills.
  8. How do you balance gaming and game dev?

    I guess the trouble for a gamer is that he/she sees these companies often from the other end... and many of the big publishers have not really madea good impression on their customers in the last few years. Thus its really easy to misinterpret a maybe small scandal that happened in an isolated studio that worked for EA as "EA being rotten to the core"... after all we all crave for an explanation on WHY the big publishers sometimes seem to be so scummy to their customers. When probably its just the big wigs not caring an inch about gaming as a whole and seeing customers just as bags of money to be plundered, and it has nothing to do with the studios themselves. Or its even simpler mismanagment caused by overambition. We'll, to be honest I should know better, and my resentment for EA as a customer most probably got me there. Well, or you start thinking about a career as pro gamer. Yeah, I know, some people think its not a job, yadda yadda yadda... At the same time some people win millions in tournaments. Of course, as with sports, you have a very small chance to be at the top and win big... and a big chance to linger at the bottom of the food chain and get nothing. Not really a career unless you are really good. Still, something to keep in mind. making games =/= playing games. Both can be a career if you are really into it an spend your time improving your skills... both probably are only half as glamorous as you think they are once you start treating it as a job. I couldn't be a pro gamer. Enough games feel like a job already, I tend to drop them like hot potatos or just ignore the grindy parts. Side quests, open worlds and RPG elements have led to more and more games asking you to do menial side busy work most of the time just so you are well equipped and leveled for the main event. Maybe cool for people trying to get "their moneys worth" in time out of a 60$ game, but to me it feels like work often more than actually playing. That is how I imaging pro gaming will feel oftentimes.
  9. How do you balance gaming and game dev?

    In this case, I take the "everything" part back. I still think EA is the embodiment of MOST things hat are wrong with the AAA industry (we could add Warner Bros to the list, and Ubisoft, but here I KNOW that Warner Bros is just the big boss driving awesome devs to overreach and underdeliver and Ubisoft... well... just delivers a lot of rushed products, don't really know about the working conditions). But granted, on the stakeholder side I was only working with the big controversy EA was tied to some years back... good to know that not every studio EA runs is affected by the shady business practices that this controversy was exposing. I think the AAA industry has to work on both ends to achieve more longterm sustainability, both deliver better products with less shady monetization to customers and improve working conditions in the studios that are currently affected by bad management and overaggressive deadlines. And maybe, just maybe, don't make stupid mistakes like it did with Andromeda... I would bet some insiders saw the disasters coming from a miles away and upper management would still push for a release. Now a big franchise might have been run into the ground. Longterm this was a bad move. All IMO, of course.
  10. How do you balance gaming and game dev?

    Let me be more precise... you HAVE to be passionate about what you do if you want to do a GREAT, not just a good or good enough job. Which is USUALLY what people like the OP are talking about when they talk about getting into making games. They do not want to be able to pay the bills... they want to create art. Now, I am a professional in a different technical field myself, and I am about as passionate about the product of the company I am working for as most people working in the bigger studios probably are about the games they work for... which is... not so much. But it pays the bills, the colleagues are nice, and generally I like the work I am doing there. Yes, that is a reality for most professionals in todays world. Most of them will only be small cogwheels in a much larger machine, and most probably will only care about their direct surroundings. If you are lucky, they have at least some pride in their own work and try to do the best job they can. Put enough corporate BS on their shoulders (managers are very good at that in ALL lines of work), or pick simply the wrong person, and they might aim even lower than that and just see how little they have to put in to not be fired. Then there are the figureheads who are paid to be passionate and are often horrible fakers and PR disasters... lets not forget Hello games and their own PR disaster caused by a single figurehead not being able to keep his mouth shut. In a big AAA setting, as long as you still have SOMEONE passionate enough about the project and not the money, and in a high enough position to fight back corporate bullshit from management and the publisher, and entice the normale employes not really pulling their weight to do better (while hopefully also reminding the ones pulling too much to dial back a nothc to not burn out on it), this can still result in a great game. After all, most of the people involved are professionals that are expected to churn out good work even if they are running on autopilot, and sometimes the resulting product can be taken from mediocre to great with the hard work of a few who want to go above and beyond the usual. In an Indie setting sadly you get the same distribution of passionate, run of the mill, and lazy persons. You just don't get the same bell curve distribution among the company because they might be not enough people in the company to actually form a bell curve. You might get more passion on average, but also much less professionalism. Lastly, while the AAA industry might pay good salaries even compared to other technical fields, the Indie dev careers on average don't. Picking to be an Indie game dev is a choice people should make out of passion, which I get is what most of the pros moving from the AAA industry to an Indie career do. True, for some it might be a necessity because they not longer are able to find a job, or they have a great idea they want to realize outside of the shackles of the AAA industry. But given demand for programmers outside of the gaming industry is still high, and artists might also find employment doing something else, there still HAS to be some passion for making games to stay in the industry as an Indie. So I am not denying that your response to my initial statement has some truth ESPECIALLY in respect to people in the AAA industry... but Indie devs without passion for games... well... lets just say among them are some of the most disgusting devs that are infesting the Steam and App Stores of this world. If you had ANY passion for games you wouldn't waste anyones time trying to game the Steam stores trading card system, or upload a Unity template project without any alterations to the stores again and again. You can bet that if a GOOD game comes out from any dev, there was SOMEONE SOMEWHERE in the company that had passion for what they created. Passion alone does not guarantee a good game. The absence of passion will guarantee a mediocre game at best. Oh, and almost missed the "...won't be passionate about it at the end" part. Yes, totally agree. I have seen with my own eyes what mistreatment of employees, corporate BS and mismanagment can do to a corporate culture. A company can go from healthy to undead within a few years when people are put under pressure and managers start to make their usual d*ck moves treating money as more important as people. The company usually will not recover from it. The worst part is, it might actually survive and even thrive... but inside, people will cooperate less and be more selfish. The productivity suffers while managers still try to squeeze out more work from their employees in order to save money they may or may not need to save. I predict such a company will either go under long term, or will take 10 times as long to recover, as it needs to cycle out the old burnt out staff, and build up a new culture with the new staff while avoiding the old staffers souring the mood of the new ones. And as you cannot fire a full company without closing down shop -> almost impossible to achieve. You WILL have to win back the favour of the old staffers, which is a hard feat when many of these have an axe to grind with the old management, and new management might not even know what exactly has happened that disgruntled the old staff so much, while not really caring enough to get to the bottom of it. Having seen what the crisis and our "management overhead" and their mostly stupid ideas has done to the company I work in, I can only imagine how much worse people in SOME of the more infamous AAA studios *cough*everythingEA*cough* have it.
  11. How do you balance gaming and game dev?

    My opinion: You don't NEED to be a gamer to be a good game developer. You HAVE to be passionate about the games you make, need SOME interest in the topic (sports if you are making sports games, and certainly game theory / programming / art depending on your actual profession within the team). Now, of course it doesn't HURT to be a passionate gamer to be good at making games. Totally opposite of that... if you have played a lot of games, you know some of the tricks of other game developers inside out, at least from the customers end. Now, seeing things through the players lens is only half the truth. Without reading up about how something was done from the developers perspective, about the decisions made and why they wer made, without playing the game as a designer, thus to take notes, analyze and not to have fun first and foremost, most time playing games is just "wasted time", at least from the perspective of widening your horizon as a game dev. How I balance gaming and game development personally: most of my free time not used for doing sports or spending time with my GF I spend on game development. I have 1 or 2 evenings per week I spend playing single player games, sometimes I spend my lunch break playing retro games for 30 minutes. At the weekend I often meet my pals online for some hours of online gaming. I try to keep my hours playing games to that. I am playing Horizon Zero Dawn since about 2 months now and am only about half way through the game (though, yeah, I am completionisting the sh*t out of the game, and of course had to power up my bows with some hours of farming), and I have half a dozen retro games still waiting to be finished. That is the price I pay. I will never be able to play all the cool new games that come out. The last of us is on my list since it came out. MY PS3 had disk troubles when I bought it in the PSN back in the day, was never able to install it. Now I am planning to get the souped up version for my PS4, but probably will not get to that until the sequel hits. I have 3 games for my PS4, that most probably will take me all of 2017 to finish. Really, if you want ANY time for other hobbies, like game development if done as a hobby, you need to be strict with your gaming. Restrict the hours, get picky about the games you play, try to get the most out of your gaming time (which means -> if a game isn't fun, chuck it on the pile, swallow up your pride of not having finished it, sell it, whatever, but don't waste your time on a game you don't want to play). That way you can have the best of both world, have some fun with the GOOD games that come out (and lets be honest here... the REALLY good games in the genres that interest you coming out each can probably be counted on one, maybe two hands), while still having time for other things.
  12. Especially as there are actual "Gaming Laptops" for Windows, while no machine deserving such a (somewhat dubious) moniker is available from apple. Caveat here is, as said before, that these gaming laptops might have a beefy GPU besides a beefy CPU, but are not really that "portable" thanks to size, weight and power consumption, and that GPU only working at about half power off the power grid. And of course if modern 3D games are not what your gaming revolves around, "gaming laptops" might be overkill anyway. You don't need more than an iGPU to play 2D games.
  13. Probably because a) Macs are not really among the main gaming platforms and actually a rather small market compared to windows PCs, b) the hardware is rather expensive for the performance on offer, so as long as looks and build quality are not the main concerns, but best price/performance ratio, Macs are not strong contenders, and c) Mac hardware almost never has access to the latest and greatest hardware on offer because of Apples tight controls on their hardware and their certification process... which might not be a big deal to you if you are only looking for a good laptop given laptops never will be powerhouses really benefiting from beefy GPUs and stuff like that, and Apple getting up to date hardware every other year otherwise. If you don't NEED to develop on Mac because you develop for iPhones (which I believe can be done on Windows machines, but with a little bit more complications), or are just 100% tied to the Apple ecosystem or totally in love with their OS, there is no real reason to pick a Mac over a Windows machine. You can get the same build quality from windows machines if you pick carefully. At that point the prices are not THAT different to Apple machines anymore. But really, the Surface machines from Microsoft can compete with Apple hardware any day of the week (sadly also on high prices). Now, with windows you get choice. A ton of choice. Like Microsoft or hate them, they still have a pretty open ecosystem. You an pick from a myriad of budget, workstation or high quality hardware options. You can build your own machine from scratch. Everyone can build software for their OS without Microsoft being involved. That choice can also be a bad thing. I heard many a user complain about it and praising Macs and Apple in general for their simplicity. Which holds true (as long as you don't deviate from the prescribed path... heaven forbid you ask Apple for support on a 2008 Mac Mini in 2017. They had to patch me through about 4 different support units until somebody could say which MacOS version that machine could still be updated to... and that whole process was only necessary because Apple is not prepared for iCloud customers having switched to Android and Windows... its like they rather not have me as a customer if I don't own the full stack of products they offer). But again, unless you are not looking for that simplicity, but rather have choice and the option to open your PC and replace a damaged part without worrying that you might lose any chance of ever getting support from your PC manufacturer ever again, Windows PCs might be a better choice. With Linux being on the other end of the simplicity vs. openness scale. Long story short: Apples Macbooks certainly are good machines, if you are not looking for getting the best price/performance ratio, don't mind MacOS or actually mind switching to Windows or another Linux distro (with MacOs just being a very elaborate windowing system over their own distro), or just need the street creds or the looks that come with an Apple machine. I wouldn't even REALLY put build quality down on that list, not as long as Apple still insist on using aluminium instead of a stronger metal to cast their laptop casings from. That metal just collects scratches way too easy. But most of the Macs vs. PC debate comes down to religion, not real facts. Because when we get down to it, both OS are equally capable in about all use cases in the hands of an expierienced user, most important software suites are available for both OSes, and you can find similar quality hardware among the huge crowd of different windows machines on offer.
  14. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    I am pretty sure this has been asked before, but I am curious, and the textwalls in this thread do not make it easy to read everything. What do you want to achieve here? With this thread, and your continued thread history on GD.net? Do you want recognition? Are you looking for a team (yet you seem to have dismissed people who wanted to team up with you)? Are you looking for money (when this forum by large is populated by hobbyists, small Indies and AAA Industry grunts, not the investors you would be looking for)? Are you looking for a job (why not start with the "careers" menu on GD.net)? I think if you are looking for recognition, you got an answer on what you need to do to achieve it over and over again. Heck, reading that you actually presented a prototype and people tested it out in this forum makes me believe you are not even on the wrong track here. The only thing missing now is looking at the feedback and trying to improve on the design. After all, that is what you yourself claim made you good as a game designer. By playing rapid prototypes and iterating on your designs. Why not do the same when other people play your games? If you are looking for a team... well. Maybe you got to start improving your own attidute before people start flocking in to help on your projects first. Nobody really likes being talked down to. You seem to be feeling the same. Would I want to work for a guy constantly rattling on about how much superior he is to me? How much you and what you did until now sucks? Hell no! Even if it was true (and I am making a HUGE leap of faith here), and you were the masterchieft of designers because you came from a superior race of godlike designers that went extinct with the advent of the video games, maybe stop your tirades about how crap modern games are, how inferior modern designers and work methodology is and start talking about WHY people should care (and should want to work with you). Oh, and if you are looking for assembling a 100 man strong crew to build the next Eve Online... either make sure to recruits from 1000's of places like GD.net, or look elsewhere. Maybe have the funds ready to support such a goal. If you are looking for investors.... definitely look elsewhere. Have you tried Kickstarter? If your group was so influental, and there where so many bigwigs contributing, why not ask the JPL Engineers and Military guys to contribute money to your cause? If you had NASA Engineers interested enough to contribute their free time to it 25 or 40 years ago, maybe they are ready to contribute some of the wealth they must have amassed in their professional life to your cause now if you sell it to them right? Again, maybe work on your pitch. Huge, hard to read Textwalls do not sell products on Kickstarter. If selling a product is beneath your pedigree, I am sorry, but you will fail in life. Everyone got to sell at least themselves, nobody gets to be a star without first making a good pitch. If you are looking for a job, did apply to jobs and get turned down again and again... maybe, just maybe, that attidute you show again and again lowered your chances considerably. Did you talk down to your potential future boss like you do talk down to readers of this forum? Was your first sentence in the interview "I have been a game designer for 40 years, and your industry has no idea what real game design is."? Maybe you want to prove first that you are that superior before laying your superiority complex on the table... even if you can prove that you are as superior as you claim to be, you might get shot down because there is no way in hell any other person will fit into the office space next to your inflated ego. Being good at what you do does not warrant you being a colossal **** to everyone around you. That might go down well for youtubers and movie stars that do not have to work in a team. For people that have to rely on teamwork to get anything done, good luck with that.
  15. Nobody Wants A Cybergod?

    How about 5 that clearly illustrate your point? Maybe with Illustrations instead of just text, even? I understand that you are frustrated that people just can't seem to grasp the genius of your idea, but if nobody gets it, maybe the problem doesn't lie with the other people. In the end, the world has not been waiting on your awesome ideas, unless you show them how awesome they are. Seems at least here in the forum, you haven't achieved that. I think many have told you this before, but here I go again: while ageism might be rampant in this industry, this certainly is not a problem with ageism. I don't know what you expierienced in this industry outside of what I have seen here on GD.net, but if you have been trying to get people interested in your product and your skills the same way you did on this page, your age is the least of your problem. Hell, I cannot even say if your actual skill or product is... they might be as ingenius as you make them out to be. And that is the big problem right there... bad communication. You might have flashy elevator pitches... but they sound extremly out there and hard to believe. You lack any kind of proof that can be presented to management or anyone without the time to read a full PhD work. And it seems even the "full work" you intended to use to sell your product is not going enough into the nitty gritty detail on WHY your work should live up to the elevator pitch that even the few people bothering to read all the text come out puzzled by it at the end, not interested. You are overselling yourself and underdelivering, all the while being way to afraid of plagiarism when you should be rather afraid that your claims sound hyperbolic without proof, proof that would mean you have to let goof some of the secrets you claim to hold. Just because the fortune teller tells you he knows exactly what your future holds, you will not believe him without any proof, right?