Jump to content
  • Advertisement

SomeoneRichards

Member
  • Content count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About SomeoneRichards

Personal Information

  • Industry Role
    Game Designer
  • Interests
    Programming

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. SomeoneRichards

    Making Certain themes accepectable

    Really? So if an artist doesn't understand how an audience may interpret his or her work, they are no longer an artist? And how many musicians, authors and screenwriters have you just robbed of their artist title by claiming that an audience reading a different meaning of their work to them marks their work a failure? I'm sorry, but it works exactly like that. People decide what they mean, and what they intend (directly or indirectly). You get to decide what you hear, but not what was said. That is exactly how it works.
  2. SomeoneRichards

    Making Certain themes accepectable

    Yes. It is a statement that the artist does not want to engage with the discussion. The artist is stating directly that he or she does not wish to engage with the discussion. The artist not stating anything, directly or otherwise, about the discussion. There is no further statement made. You can INFER that the artist does not believe the discussion to be worth having, but that is your INFERENCE. The artist does not need to IMPLY anything. MARRY in this context just means to bring together or combine.
  3. SomeoneRichards

    Making Certain themes accepectable

    Ignorance is a risky choice of term here because it has negative connotations (IE, it suggests undesirability) without needing to. And there are more than two available avenues here... If we adopt a model where a controversial theme is either used deliberately to incite controversy, or else it was done so accidentally (and is only acceptable once) we are creating two HUGE problems. Firstly, we are artificially restricting or pigeonholing certain topics (and related themes), and giving them additional power of automate over the user. Secondly, we are giving the 'other party' the ability to decide the first party's intentionality and use of speech - which makes our language a potential booby trap in all social encounters. To continue with the example, by your explanation, we cannot ever use the subject of a homophobic slur without it being a deliberate attempt at controversy, or an accidental cause (which I can only use one). So no homophobic jokes (that might be OK), no homophobic characters in books (books no longer representative of certain aspects of reality), I can't mention my homophobic uncle (I'll just repress that then), and if I ever encounter encounter the mere mention of homophobic slurs, I should inform the speaker that they are either ignorant or a deliberate trouble-maker... A third, alternative, route is that of neutrality, and we see this commonly. We can, as I have said, feature a subject that causes controversy, without deliberately inciting controversy, or accidentally doing so. To deny what? The initial poster has every right to say "I was worried about the potential controversy* of the subject, so I looked for a few opinions, but, ultimately, I decided that I didn't need to engage with those aspects of the topic. Child soldiers is a possible theme in fiction, so I used it." *And by 'potential controversy', he means the potential for the SUBJECT to cause controversy amongst some audiences, and NOT the potential for him to be eliciting controversy by USING THE SUBJECT".
  4. SomeoneRichards

    Making Certain themes accepectable

    Of course. But there are different types of controversial actions. Some can be done unintended, others cannot. There is a subtle distinction, and I will try to indicate it here: A person does something, and IT is controversial. This IT can refer to 1) the thing that the person is doing, 2) the act of the person doing the thing. It's very subtle, and easy to miss, but it is important. It can be summarised as the distinction between 'doing something' and 'doing something about'. Specifically, in the context of our conversations, it is the distinction between making a statement, and making a statement about. To make a statement can mean either 1) to say something, 2) to say something about something. To make a controversial statement can mean 1) To say something that is a controversial theme <- the outcome, or subject, of the 'saying' is controversial 2) To say something about the controversial theme <- the use of the outcome, or subject, of the 'saying' is controversial. It is analogous to the distinction between doing something controversial (I didn't know a certain custom, the performing of that custom caused a controversy), and doing something about that controversy (I know that such and such was controversial, and I did it to prove a point). So, in response to your comment (and adapting it to our conversation): "People will make controversial STATEMENTS unintended". 1) A person will say A THING, and by mentioning that THING the person has unintentionally mentioned a CONTROVERSIAL THING. <- Yes, this happens unintentionally, all the time. 2) A person will SAY A THING, and by SAYING THAT THING the person is unintentionally SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THE THING. <- No, this does not happen unintentionally. "John said that the soldiers in his game were children. THAT was controversial" 1) The soldiers being children was controversial. 2) John using child soldiers in his story was controversial. 1) John is saying that some soldiers are children. <- Controversy is potentially unintentional 2) John is saying something about children being soldiers. <-This cannot be done unintentionally To put it in other words, the speaker is uncharge of what they are saying. No ifs, or buts. They decide where intentionality and action begins and ends, and they decide on what they SAY or IMPLY. They are not in charge of the general meaning of words (they can be wrong about this), nor are they in charge of what people can INFER (people can infer whatever they like) from what they SAY.
  5. SomeoneRichards

    Making Certain themes accepectable

    It doesn't look we disagree at all... "giving rise" through deliberation, "likely to give rise" through potentiality... When something has the "potential" to do something, we use the word "can". The same word I used in capital letters... Subjectivity is necessarily directional... "It only exists when multiple people disagree about an issue", which is a multitude of people that does not need to include you. Ergo, you can say something that ""gives rise to public disagreement" (ie, you can say something that becomes/or will become controversial) without you disagreeing (or agreeing with it) yourself (without you considering it to be so). Your intent "or lack thereof" may be relevant to those present in "the court of public opinion", but that does not make it necessarily relevant to yourself. It still is not up to me what "the court of public opinion" finds controversial, who sits in "the court", when "the court" sits, and so on. I can intentionally spark a controversial debate (by spouting deliberately homophobic comments, for instance), I can unintentionally spark a controversial debate (by being English and wearing white after labour day, for instance), I can participate in that controversial debate (by defending my actions, for instance), or I can not participate in that controversial debate. And we weren't discussing the meaning of controversy. We were discussing whether "Choosing to engage with a controversial topic is itself a statement thereon", which, does not follow from your definition of controversial. To quote the dictionary for "to state": to declare definitely or specifically to set forth formally in speech or writing to set forth in proper or definite form You can feature a theme that can "giv[e] rise or [be] likely to give rise to public disagreement" without doing any of the above. Yes, and many, many, many artists choose to not participate in this debate because those many, many, many artists do not believe that to be the case. That's why we have separate modes of referral to controversial art (pieces that give rise to public debate), and controversial artists (those who use their work to give rise to public debate). The two can, and often are, used distinctively. To make a statement is a deliberate and considered activity. To claim that you know when another person has acted/is acting deliberately, when they suggest that they aren't, is a very, very dangerous precedent to set. You are confusing the deliberate specificity of making statements with implication, and then you are confusing implication with inference.
  6. SomeoneRichards

    Making Certain themes accepectable

    No it isn't. Choosing to feature a topic, and choosing to make a statement are two separate things. To make a statement is a deliberate active process. Watch: Sometimes children are used in warfare. I just said it. I didn't say I was for it. I didn't say I was against it. I didn't say I was neutral in regards to it. I didn't say I wanted to discuss it. I didn't say I didn't want to discuss it. I didn't say anything about it, other than that it is. Choosing to feature a topic that CAN BE considered controversial CAN BE considered as a statement thereon. It's not up to me what another person takes to be a statement or not. And just because another person can consider something I have said to be a statement about something doesn't make it the case. Reality doesn't work like that. One can use such a feature while remaining completely passive towards any wider ideals or concepts about the feature. And doing so is not a statement about that passiveness. Of course, I'm aware of many of the ways* that the things that I say and do CAN BE interpreted, and, generally, I feel that I should do so responsible. But I don't always things this of the things I do, and I don't think that because this is something I (generally) try to do that it is an absolute maxim for mankind. I can write a story. That story can feature soldiers. Those soldiers can be children. The fact that that aspect can have specific connotations or interpretations by some people doesn't make those connotations or interpretations of that aspect. Not any more than my featuring soldiers is a statement about war, or my writing a story is a statement about stories/prose/sentences/words/fiction/the English language, or the fact that my characters all eat meat is a statement about vegetarianism, etc. *This list seems to be inexhaustible.
  7. SomeoneRichards

    Why are member variables called out?

    class WidgetSlow { int sum; public: void SetSum(const Array& arr) { sum = 0; for( int i=0; i!=arr.size; ++i ) sum += arr.data[i]; } }; class WidgetFast { int sum; public: void SetSum(const Array& arr) { int t_sum = 0; for( int i=0, end=arr.size; i!=end; ++i ) t_sum += arr.data[i]; sum = t_sum; } }; ... does the same job of distinguishing the scope of variables. And makes the 'SetSum' title a little more accurate (if we're being very strict), since we're not setting 'sum', we're setting m_sum. But, again, I should have phrased the title of this post clearer to indicate that I am not questioning why we differentiate variables of different scopes, rather why we chose to call out the member variables, rather than anything out. To be clear. We should differentiate between data at different levels of scope. Member variables, parameters and intermediary/temporary variables should be differentiated to avoid confusion. The question was why do we add the designator m_ to member variables, rather than p_ to parameter variables, or i_ or t_ to intermediary/temporary variables. I thought differentiating the parameter variables seemed more sensible, and assumed that member variables were differentiated as a convention, however, ChaosEngine has provided a good point as to why the differentiate should be where it is.
  8. SomeoneRichards

    Custom Architecture Advice - ECS without events?

    I'm not sure how you are going from the singular entity that binds to the potential multiple binded entities. I suppose the component could allow specification of multiple topics. But, anyway, it imposes an asymmetricity that I don't like. I want my entities to contain data (so components) that concerns them only. I'm working towards an architecture where entities have only their own components, and, of course, specific systems only work on the components that they care about. Then a higher level - the gameplay level - has its own systems, components and entities (scripted couplings in the form of interactions, and the ad-hoc triggering of these interactions, in the form of events). The entire discussion started because I was wondering why make a new structure for these events when I can just use the existing entity component framework... So far, there are reasons for both, and I am still undecided. I've been assuming that this wasn't an either/or case... I'm using ECS in the places that it makes sense for my program - and I'm having this discussion to clarify those places To be clear, I didn't decide on an ECS architecture. I simply arranged the program in a way that seemed logical, refactoring as I went. It is only when I am looking for advice or information about specific questions or problems that I have to force my architecture in to an established paradigm - because paradigms seem to be the primary vocabulary for discussing this things - with all the added confusion that that brings.
  9. SomeoneRichards

    Why are member variables called out?

    Ahhh. I was focusing on member vs non-member variables... I hadn't considered the wider picture of member and non-member functions - which is odd because almost all of my functions are declared outside of structs... You are completely correct and that makes perfect sense. Thank you.
  10. SomeoneRichards

    Pay What You Want Model

    Exactly... (Some, maybe most) people only pay when they think they're getting something extra if they do so. Having a developer stay around to support or expand the product is something worth paying extra for. I'm saying make sure people understand the connection between paying for the game, getting better/more games.
  11. SomeoneRichards

    Making Certain themes accepectable

    I'm not really sure I agree with this, and I think that this might be central to the issue and discussion. There are two stances here: the first is that an issue has the potential to cause controversy; the second is that such issues are always inherently controversial. From these two stances, there are three possible directions: the first is that such issues are always inherently controversial, and should always be avoided, unless they're trying to do some good; the second is that such issues have the potential to cause controversy, and so should be handled with a mind towards that matter; the third is that while such issues may have the potential to cause controversy, the use of the issue itself is not inherently controversial, and so the issue can be used freely, and this aspect can be safely ignored. There are many examples of all of these directions, but I do not intend to get into any kind of debate or discuss about the matter. The reason for this post is just to ensure that you understand, when discussing and proceeding with the idea, which stance and direction you are taking (and why), and which stance and direction the people you are talking to are taking (and how you will respect that position). Personally, I think that people can feature or explore potentially controversial themes without making any kind of statement regarding that potential controversy, BUT such people should be aware of what they are doing, and why, and being fully prepared to respect the views of others at all times. That's fine. Everyone does have an opinion. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to treat them with respect - for no other reason than that their opinion is no less of an opinion than yours.
  12. SomeoneRichards

    Why are member variables called out?

    Do people not normally do this? Again, I don't really adopt this as a convention, but a lot of my code tends to have variables like: value <- the definitive member variable tempValue <- a temporary or intermediary variable inValue <- the value passed as a parameter. I assumed that would be normal. *Obviously, I have more useful names than 'value'...
  13. SomeoneRichards

    Pay What You Want Model

    What is interesting about that blog post, is that there are clearly identifiable prices that people had a tendency to aim for, and that these are easily identifiable as common price ranges for certain types of product. IE, you can think of common product size and quality expectations for those specific price points. £29.99 seems about standard for a complete PC game, £19.99 for a smaller game or significant expansion, £14.99 for a budget game, etc. It tells you how people thought this game was placed before purchasing it, and I'm sure this is something you do yourself when asked to price up a game - compare it to the market standards, apply a risk factor, etc.
  14. SomeoneRichards

    Pay What You Want Model

    Of course you would. You know that and I know that. The point is that your audience may not. In fact, your audience might have firmly decided that you won't. The key to getting someone to pay more than they normally would is to provide some additional value. With computer games, it seems longevity (through support and additional material) is the best form of added value. This is why people pay for early access games - products that they know are incomplete in their present state; because they are getting more later on. So I was saying to make sure that you provide it... I'm saying to make sure that your buyers are aware of it.
  15. SomeoneRichards

    Why are member variables called out?

    Thanks for the responses. I wasn't specifically questioning why variables should be identified as belonging to the function - although the post title does suggest that. I was more asking why, by convention, is it the MEMBER variables that are called as opposed to the GUEST variables. It is indeed
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!