• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

BMO

Members
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

170 Neutral

About BMO

  • Rank
    Member
  1. [quote name='JTippetts' timestamp='1355504681' post='5010660'] [quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355504209' post='5010658'] I might be wrong, the answer to all the worlds problems might be in understanding that we are in some made up simulation. But I doubt it. And I think there are more pressing issues at hand. What if the answer is "No, we were wrong. That was all a bunch of garbage."? Wasted time and energy imho. [/quote] This is kind of faulty thinking, imo. You can't know whether or not an experiment will be successful unless the experiment is performed. And if the experiment is a success? Then yes, you can learn a [i]great deal[/i] from it that could be of benefit to mankind. Did you know that it's theorized that the universe has a baseline energy level (what we might call a "zero point") and that this energy represents the power of entire suns packed into a single cubic centimeter of space? Imagine if, by understanding the structure of the universe more completely, we could somehow unlock this potential, or some other energy potential as yet undiscovered? It's no secret that we are facing a huge energy crisis, and anything that could possibly lead to answers should be explored. [/quote] Your right. It's not logical. I just don't feel that in this particular instance the research is going to lead to results. Its just an opinion. I hope I'm wrong. [quote name='Arthur Souza' timestamp='1355505211' post='5010663'] Why the hell are we even thinking about creating stupid games instead of trying to cure cancer, right? [/quote] I am because I'm not smart enough to cure cancer. But if I happen to be successful someday I will use the money I make to support those that are. Edit: I guess the bigger point that I'm getting to is that I don't think all research is worth doing just for the sake of research. We can come up with all kinds of possible scenarios that might be true, but I'd rather that the Einsteins of the world focus on those that have a higher degree of probability of actually being true and have a meaningful impact on society. We might all be a product of mole people living in the Earths core, and I can't disprove that. But I don't think we should invest the time and money to find out. That is not the same as saying all research is bad and we shouldn't ever experiment. It's not so black and white.
  2. I might be wrong, the answer to all the worlds problems might be in understanding that we are in some made up simulation. But I doubt it. And I think there are more pressing issues at hand. What if the answer is "No, we were wrong. That was all a bunch of garbage."? Wasted time and energy imho.
  3. [quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1355501493' post='5010645'] [quote] I never said anyone was assigned to anything. I think they are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. The worlds problems needs multi-disciplinary solutions (global warming for example needs physicists and biologists ect. ect. ad nauseum). Just because they chose to work on that project doesn't change the fact that it's a project that isn't worth the time. [/quote] It's not a "waste of time", they're theoretical physicists, it's their job to ask such questions and investigate such things. Your argument is essentially "I think it's a waste of time when they could be solving bigger problems" which I have already explained is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or scenario no matter how many times you repeat this fallacy. [quote]These are some of the worlds most brilliant minds working on something as important as figuring out the best way to win at tic tac toe. They may be passionate, but it's still a waste of human potential.[/quote] Do you have a source for this or are you making a rather large (and baseless) assumption here? I wouldn't put tic tac toe on the same footing as answering fundamental questions about the nature of the universe. [/quote] Thats not essentially my argument, thats exactly my argument. It's not a false dichotomy because I'm not saying there are ONLY two options. They could work on stuff that would answer questions AND save lives, but they aren't. I feel that it's a waste of time because it will help zero people. And I feel that the worlds smartest people should work on making the world a better place. I don't think they will ever answer anything and they are just running to nowhere on their hamster wheels in the name of science. Thats an opinion, not a fact. What good will it do the world to know we are in a simulation when we are all dead? I think saving lives is far more important than answering questions that won't have any real effect. I personally feel that people that are as smart as they are have a moral obligation to help the society that educated them and I don't think this helps anyone. That's just like, my opinion, man.
  4. [quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355499940' post='5010636'] [quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355497165' post='5010622'] Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant. [/quote] But arrogance does not condemn me to hell. That logic only works on religious people. I am already fully aware of what happens in death, since I already experienced it before I was born. Do you not also remember that millenia of nothingness? It lasted over 10 billion times longer than you have been alive, so why would you forget? Honestly, existence before life and after life are both exactly the same. Death is no mystery. We have all already been there. Why is this so hard for people to understand and accept? L. Spiro [/quote] I'm not condemning you to hell. I'm saying that declaring you know something with 100% certainty when its impossible to know for 100%, is arrogant. Whether that is for or against religion is irrelevant. You cannot prove something that is improvable, and all faith based religions are improvable. That's what makes it a faith based religion. You can't prove OR disprove it. Why is that so hard for you to figure out? You are continually making the same logical errors religious folks make, saying you know things for certain which are impossible to know and then declaring it as fact. 2 sides of the same coin.
  5. [quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1355497595' post='5010625'] Scientific research isn't about someone assigning scientists to specific research topics, people go into areas of research of their own choosing because that is what they are interested in. Some people have a knack for theoretical physics. Some have a knack for revolutionary biology and so on. It's a false dichotomy to say that either a team of researchers explore this area of physics or they explore an other area of biology, that's not how research is conducted. And who's to say that this team of physicists would be any good at biology? Who's to say that cancer research (or whatever example you give) does not inspire them like their current area of research does? In any case, it's not like cancer hasn't been a massive area of research for many decades or anything. [/quote] I never said anyone was assigned to anything. I think they are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. The worlds problems needs multi-disciplinary solutions (global warming for example needs physicists and biologists ect. ect. ad nauseum). Just because they chose to work on that project doesn't change the fact that it's a project that isn't worth the time. These are some of the worlds most brilliant minds working on something as important as figuring out the best way to win at tic tac toe. They may be passionate, but it's still a waste of human potential.
  6. [quote name='L. Spiro' timestamp='1355496112' post='5010621'] You simply understand enough to know that there is always a better explanation, and you are not so arrogant as to assume you know what that explanation is. [/quote] Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant. This is why I'm agnostic. Even if I personally feel there is no god, I can't say that with 100% certainty because I'm only human and there are limits to the human brain. Edit: And it doesn't matter whats "proved" or not. There is a nice little saying that gives religious folks a loophole for everything: "God works in mysterious ways." You can rationalize that forever. And it would actually lend support to the intelligent design crowd if scientist were to conclude the universe is a giant simulation.
  7. [quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1355476254' post='5010537'] [quote name='BMO' timestamp='1355464310' post='5010488'] Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds. [/quote]It's not like they've pulled scientists of Team Cancer to stick them on this project. It's not an either/or situation. [/quote] You've kind of missed my point. The point is that the world has important issues that need to be solved. This is a bunch of wasted talent on a useless thought exercise. Cancer was just a random example of something important.
  8. Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.
  9. Geany is a pretty decent IDE for Python imho, but to get it to execute your scripts you'll have to set the path (assuming your using Windows) and might want to set the indentation to just use spaces. But that's pretty easy to setup.
  10. Looks like that header file is part of the MFC library which isn't included in Visual Studio Express. You can try windows.h if your not using MFC or try: [url="http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/30439/How-to-compile-MFC-code-in-Visual-C-Express"]http://www.codeproje...isual-C-Express[/url] Edit: SpringDev beat me to it, so yeah, what he said. [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png[/img]
  11. If you like CS then I'd say try and stick it out a little longer. Remember you will only have to deal with those classes/professors for a limited time, but the knowledge you gain will stay with you forever. And it's also a whole lot easier to do the things you enjoy when you don't have to worry about paying the light bill. Once you graduate it's far more important what you can actually do than where you went to school. I would even go so far as to say that the school is almost irrelevant, provided you can demonstrate your knowledge. My Uncle works as a DBA and his degree is in Journalism. I've also seen in Job postings for programmers where a degree in Math was listed as acceptable for the position. If you haven't seen it yet, you might check out Udacity.com (Lol this is probably the 5th time in a week I've recommended this site, I'm starting to sound like a broken record). They have some very cool classes, like programming a robotic car. It's also hands down the best experience I've had learning computer science. The most important thing I've learned in school is becoming responsible for my own learning. I don't depend on the professors for hardly anything unless I just run into a wall. I view them more as facilitators. In the end, do what feels right, because that means it probably is. If that means going for physics or mathematics then do it. Who cares what others think, they aren't you.
  12. [quote name='Shippou' timestamp='1355049587' post='5008762'] I have, however, defaulted on my student loans, since I can not find any kind of job that pays more than my loan payments. My credit is wrecked, and any kind of retirement benefits I may receive in the future is forfeit (until the defaulted debt is payed back). [/quote] Somehow I missed this. You can call your loan people and more than likely have the payments deferred so you don't ruin your credit. My cousin deferred hers for 5 years because she wanted to wait till she made more money to pay them back. You have options, just call them.
  13. I imagine a dedicated hacker could still bypass a dongle through emulation. Though it would be pretty difficult and probably not worth it. Commercial forensic software such as EnCase use dongles for this exact purpose.
  14. [quote name='NellekoC' timestamp='1355053689' post='5008770'] Hello Everyone! My name is NellekoC, me and my friend are building a project in game developing. We are planning a small scale project before going for the larger scale. So our problem is, we can't seem to find a proper programming language to use. Our game is a simple "turn-based" game. Although we decided to make it using C++ the problem is we don't know anything much about how graphic works and how it is implemented in the said language. so here we are now making our research and need a few advises before jumping in. [/quote] If you don't already know how to program, trying to use c++ to jump right into graphics is a bad idea. It's like saying "I don't know what a 5/16 box wrench is but I want to build a race car for NASCAR." If you want to jump right into making simple games try something like Python or Java (I recommend Python). They have a much shorter learning curve.
  15. [quote name='Sean12111' timestamp='1355035061' post='5008718'] I have spent a few weeks learning c++ and have written a few long programs but everyone tells me c++ is useless. Is that true? If so what is the best language to start with? I plan to try and create my own games once I settle on a language. [/quote] Useless? Lol heck no. A bit of a pain to use compared to more recently developed languages? Yes. I think Python is the best to start with. You need to spend time learning computer science and when trying to learn a language AND computer science at the same time you want a language that won't get in the way of the CS component (because that is FAR more important than the specifics of the language). It's relatively easy to pick up a second programming language once you have the computer science fundamentals down. I've plugged it several times on this board and I'll plug it again, but Udacity is a great place to start learning computer science with Python. Another great resource is the inventwithpython.com website which has two free books for beginners that is completely centered around making games. I'm using these books to teach Python to my daughter (she's 11). Python is just a fun language to work with. My daughter will actually come home from school and ask "Hey Dad, can we work with Python today?" I think that alone should speak volumes.