• 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.

spartanx

Members
  • Content count

    269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Neutral

About spartanx

  • Rank
    Member
  1. "For the last five weeks, support requests for the pirated version of the game outnumbered support requests from legitimate purchasers. Last week, the pirates outnumbered the true customers by almost five to one." http://www.romsteady.net/blog/2006/07/games-hidden-cost-of-piracy.html http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2006/072606_ritual_piracy_1.x
  2. Quote:Original post by slayemin Quote:Original post by Iftah First, I would like to note I am completely atheist, for example I wouldn't mind saying God is stupid and ugly. Wait a minute, if you're an atheist you can't say that God is stupid and ugly because then you'd contradict yourself. You'd have to believe that God exists in order to call him stupid and ugly and then you wouldn't be an atheist anymore. Nah. You can comment on the qualities and characteristics of someone or something, regardless of it's being fictional or not. You don't have to "believe" in Santa to call him fat. Nor do you need to believe in Anakin and the Emperor to say that Darth Vader is a bastard. Thusly, you don't have to "believe" in Yahweh to say it's one of the most awful characters ever.
  3. Quote:Original post by Oberon_Command Quote:Still, I don't follow why people shouldn't be improved across the board. That's the ultimate goal. Go back and read the ending of my post in its entirety. [wink] It only seems to be an unnecessary rigamarole, with "regimes" necessitating "overthrows" and lacking any guarantees of success. Filled with ends-justify-the-means ethics, and lacking any concern for your (potentially numerous) "transitional phase" generations. Again - if you can make person A better at X, and person B better at Y, why not make both A and B better at both X and Y? Quote:Original post by Oberon_Command If the changes are made at the right time and in the right way, you won't want to do anything else. Your "occupational trait" will have become strong enough that not only will you not know how to do the others, but you won't even want to. Scary... reminds me of the Dish of the Day: Quote:(By Douglas Adams) A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips. 'Good evening', it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, 'I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in the parts of my body?' It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters in to a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them. Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox. 'Something off the shoulder perhaps?' suggested the animal, 'Braised in a white wine sauce?' 'Er, your shoulder?' said Arthur in a horrified whisper. 'But naturally my shoulder, sir,' mooed the animal contentedly, 'nobody else's is mine to offer.' Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal's shoulder appreciatively. 'Or the rump is very good,' murmured the animal. 'I've been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there's a lot of good meat there.' It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again. 'Or a casserole of me perhaps?' it added. 'You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?' whispered Trillian to Ford. 'Me?' said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, 'I don't mean anything.' 'That's absolutely horrible,' exclaimed Arthur, 'the most revolting thing I've ever heard.' 'What's the problem Earthman?' said Zaphod, now transfering his attention to the animal's enormous rump. 'I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to,' said Arthur, 'It's heartless.' 'Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten,' said Zaphod. 'That's not the point,' Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. 'Alright,' he said, 'maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just ... er ... I think I'll just have a green salad,' he muttered. 'May I urge you to consider my liver?' asked the animal, 'it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months.' 'A green salad,' said Arthur emphatically. 'A green salad?' said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur. 'Are you going to tell me,' said Arthur, 'that I shouldn't have green salad?' 'Well,' said the animal, 'I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.' It managed a very slight bow. 'Glass of water please,' said Arthur. 'Look,' said Zaphod, 'we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare stakes please, and hurry. We haven't eaten in five hundred and sevebty-six thousand million years.' The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle. 'A very wise coice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,' it said, 'I'll just nip off and shoot myself.' He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. 'Don't worry, sir,' he said, 'I'll be very humane.' It waddled unhurriedly off to the kitchen.
  4. Quote:Original post by Oberon_Command Just to clarify we're not talking about specific occupations, we're talking about traits that lead people towards those occupations. For instance, a mathematical talent might lead one into (duh) mathematics-based disciplines, such as (again, duh) mathematics, the sciences, and logic. An artistic talent might lead one into (of course) the various arts. These are only a couple of traits; there are other mental traits, and physical traits that could possibly be bred for (again, more on this in a minute). Still, I don't follow why people shouldn't be improved across the board. [Edited by - spartanx on June 17, 2007 11:55:28 PM]
  5. Quote:Original post by trzy I'm not qualified to say what the social impact of a world with single children would be. All I know is that people have always been allowed to raise more offspring. And before someone brings it up, it's to be expected that alternative family configurations have appeared and will continue to appear, but having governments mandate and enforce one particular kind seems rather severe. This draws China's one-child policy for family planning to mind, something that's been decidedly over-dramatized by the west. The reasoning behind it is understandable, but it still seems iffy. While I'm no expert on the related subjects (largely economics I suspect), it seems like there would have to be better mechanisms available to achieve their ends. This has sparked some interest, so I'll likely be doing a bit more reading on the topic. Quote:Original post by trzy If something as simple as central economic planning doesn't work, I can't help but cringe at the thought of "human planning." Who are we going to appoint to do this? Experts in the matter? Hah! Hrm, we'd need a eugenics perestroika! Minus the collapse of course. :) Quote:Original post by trzy As for inequality, you'd be creating a society where the children of "genetically superior" children are more likely to have siblings and will probably move up the social ladder more quickly while the less fortunate people will be restricted to one average or below average child, without being able to have more children who are potentially gifted in different ways. These single children will over a few generations become more likely to grow up in less advantageous conditions and once they reach adulthood, will not have any immediate family besides their aging parents. I can agree, we should avoid a Gattaca or Brave New World (hrm, sci-fi, oh noes :P) sort of situations. Genetic discrimination and stratification is quite scary. While I lean libertarian, I think this would be a good cause for government involvement - everyone must equally have access (both literally and in a practical economic sense) to ensure their children are "more intelligent", "more healthy", "less vulnerable", etc. I also only support this if it's an improvement across the board - none of this "specialization" nonsense. While this won't wholly prevent a Gattaca situation, it somewhat counters it by removing the elements of a-priori economic stratification. The fact is, ultimately, this sort of genetic manipulation is rapidly approaching on the horizon. Our only real bet for the future is to enable access for everybody. Of course, there is then the global scene. Developing countries may not have access to these medical techniques, or lack the means to deliver them to their citizenry - or perhaps even lack the ethics to deliver them equally due to heavily factionalized politics. I suspect religious institutions could provide opposition as well. Quote:Original post by trzy What if I didn't want to be born a laborer because some asshole in the past decided that's how I would be bred? What if I want to be in charge of things and get all the money and women? Are you also going to eventually employ genetic engineering to make me feel happy about my station in life? Reminds me of the
  6. Quote:Original post by trzy I'm not a big sci-fi fan and I'm weary of ideas that are taken from cheesey sci-fi books or movies. Sci-fi is pure fantasy with no basis in reality and its utility for social commentary is minimal. Non sequitor. Whether you find the genre aesthetically pleasing is irrelevant. All literature, regardless of genre, is quite capable of posing social commentary. Quote:Original post by Oberon_Command Also, nobody's saying that we would breed for a single trait. We might breed ourselves into subspecies, each ideally suited for a specific task. And why should we not? Specialization is what makes our world tick; would you ask a high-school graduate to do the work of the physicist I mentioned above, with no prior training? This is a rather scary concept. Are you suggesting the breeding of, say, sanitation workers? I'd hate to aspire to be an astronaut, but never really be able to realize that aspiration, simply because someone predetermined what occupational role I should fill (it's irrelevant whether it were my parents or some government worker). This seems to run counter to self-determination, which I think is important to overall self-actualization. It also seems like it could devolve into a caste system (rather, a version more overtly so than today, and much more rigid). Ultimately though, I have trouble seeing this as even plausible. I don't see how you could breed someone to say, favor chemistry over biology or physics. "Science is science" for the most part. Why not simply "enhance" everyone to simply be the best human possible?
  7. Quote:Original post by Nathan Baum Quote: EDIT - Why cant people just enjoy an obvious fictional piece of work that is loosely based on real events. Why must people "just enjoy" a film? Why does the legitimate enjoyment of a film not extend to discussion of the subtexts of the film, or the viewer's opinions of how the issues tackled in the film relate to contemporary event? I can agree with your point. But I don't think this was quite where he was going with it. Certainly people can enjoy or derive value from veritably anything in many differing manners. I think he simply seemed to be a little miffed that something - arguably something intended purely as "non-partisan" entertainment without any specific subtext - would be taken and polarized and politicized, and used a "tool" of sorts. Depending on the context and situation this sort of activity can be seen a bit demeaning. Quote:Original post by Nathan Baum Quote: I remember as a kid thinking my parents were morons for actually having a lengthy conversation as to why the Bus jumping scene in Speed couldn't be real. What's wrong with that, exactly? I mean, it obviously can't be real. Apart from anything else, an obviously physically impossible event in an apparently non-magical film breaks suspension of disbelief. Our tension about whether they'll make it is deflated if the Hand Of God reaches down and helps them out of situations they couldn't survive. I don't recall the specific scene in question, but from the context, wouldn't improbable be a better descriptor of the potentiality than simply can't? :P Quote:Original post by Nathan Baum As LessBread points out, just because a film is enjoyable doesn't mean we aren't allowed to call them on it when the creators pretend it's historically accurate when it isn't. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe anyone's ever called 300 "historically accurate".... :) While I haven't seen the movie yet, I do have the original graphic novel. To me, in no sense does it begin to imply any accuracy. It's just some good ole sword swinging and ass kicking. :) [Edited by - spartanx on June 17, 2007 2:58:17 PM]
  8. Quote:Original post by Goober King I'm not commenting on the numerous similar actions that could or are happening in other fields of business nor am I commenting on other aspects of the computer world or the various monopolistic legal issues that surround MS's business practices in general. Nor am I interested in taking my views to such an absurd extreme that it is somehow supposed to magically disqualify them all together. My point was simply that I see your basic line of reasoning as fallacious. The examples were simply to bring that to light, not to misrepresent you or anything. Quote:Original post by Goober King To make Halo at this point in the transition from XP to Vista, Vista only when it uses no Vista only features suggests that they are trying to use Halo2 to speed up the transition to Vista. That it makes too much business sense to be some la dee dah accident or oversight. They know what they are doing and its deliberate. I don't think anyone's contesting that. Though, I don't see how it matters one way or the other... Quote:Original post by Goober King I'm also saying while they have every right to eventually move onto their new product... I'm glad to see you state as much, as I was quite seriously beginning to think you felt otherwise. :) Quote:Original post by Goober King ...its bad form and timing that's not in the interest of the consumer. The consumer holds their interests first. The company holds it's interests first. Period. Certainly, a company that is at least perceived as pandering to fickle consumer sensibilities will be seen in a positive light, but it isn't a negative thing per se, if a company doesn't overtly do so. Quote:Original post by Goober King In this case the consumer pays for a game, Vista, and possibly upgrades but is still playing a game that with a flip of a switch could have run on XP and cost them much less. But... they only wanted it to run on Vista. It's their product. End of story. :) And it's not their job to save consumers money anyways - that's the consumer's job. The business' responsibility is to their shareholders, and maximize profits.
  9. Personally, I can't help but think your propaganda-reasoning is a bit silly. You don't "need" Halo, so whether or not you "need" the upgrade is irrelevant. Buy it or don't buy it. Your argument could also be used to say that Microsoft is forcing Windows on you, simply by making MS Office: People don't need Windows, but they really really want to do some word processing with Word (and only Word, because they really really like it)! People happy with Linux are having their arms twisted into using buying Windows, which they don't need, just to use Office! There's no reason word processing has to require Windows! [rolleyes] Or how about: Greddy is forcing patriotic Americans to buy imported vehicles from foreign countries! Why aren't they making parts for American cars? People really want Greddy performance parts, but they're forced to buy import vehicles just to use them! (They must be commies!)
  10. Quote:Original post by trzy Not really. It's more relevant to eugenics because it has happened before and at the very heart of the issue are questions about what sort of life to promote. The possibility for this to turn into a slippery slope has been demonstrated. You seem to make the vague assertion that WW2 was essentially "eugenics gone wild". This is rather inaccurate and misleading.
  11. Quote:Original post by Goober King It seems like a shamless ploy to use a key title to try and twist consumers' arms into upgrading to Vista. Nobody's arm is getting twisted. Nobody is forcing you to play Halo2, nor to get Vista. Actually - if you really gave a squirt about Halo2 anyway, you'd of played it on the XBox, yeh? :) Years later in the PC scene, it's just another mediocre FPS. That said, perhaps if you needed to play it in order to cure teh aids...maybe it'd be arm twisting in that case.
  12. Quote:Original post by Mithrandir ...so don't try justifying this by saying that the paparazzi does it too. I agree, he shouldn't try to justify it. There's nothing to justify. They're taking pseudo-random pictures from public locations. Nothing illegal, nothing wrong.
  13. Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Nice intelligent remark there. Oh wait, no. ... I guess those of you who live in your parents basements just don't understand though. Oh well. How about a nice cup o' the same mess you're serving? I think you're displaying some sociopathy and advocating fascism, and you get upset. Yet in the quote above you stoop to plainly insulting more people again, as you have before. No need to be a hipocrite. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them some "basement dweller". And just who do you think you are? Youre posting on the same board as they are, but somehow you're not classified alongside them? Sheesh.
  14. Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Wait until it happens to you or someone you love. Then you'll see I'm right. Or a paranoid sociopathic luddite. I hope your brand of fascism remains marginal.
  15. Dragonshard is another game that comes to mind, which you may like to take a look at. Edit: There's also tactical games a la Jagged Alliance, XCom, etc. [Edited by - spartanx on May 27, 2007 3:19:15 PM]