Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 19/12/2010 14:21, Ary Borenszweig wrote: Seeing the enemy being literally eaten by hundreds of upgraded zerglings has no comparison. :-) I'm more of a Protoss guy myself... Reaver drop FTW! (I'll need to re-evaluate things with Starcraft II) BTW, its funny to try to make some parallels between the races and languages: Protoss == Java. Very powerful, teleports ready made structures from other dimensions (= all the libraries, middleware, app stack that is readily available). But still needs some setup (pylons). And very expensive in resources (slow), and very dependent on energy (GC-activity / having enough free memory). Humans == C++: also quite powerful, but dirty, smelly, crude, oily, smoke filled, patchy. Breaks often and needs constant repairs (SCV repairs, otherwise blows up in flames). Non elegant. Can mount a good defense/offense anywhere on the map (siege tanks, bunker forward build attacks). But not as agile. Ruby == Zerg. Utter chaos. Units can evolve into other units (dynamic typing). Very good for rushes and early game attacks (= rapid application deploying, kekekeke Rails Rush, gg). Very fast, very agile (=agile). Nydus Canals = Monkey Patching (likes to break abstractions). -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 19/12/10 4:41 PM, Caligo wrote: You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That is why to me there is no honor in game development. Some game developers do that. The vast majority do not. I don't think it's fair to insult developers in general based on the actions of a few. You might as well say there's no honor in software development because some people write viruses and other malware.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Christopher Nicholson-Sauls" wrote in message news:ienfgr$2st...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/19/10 14:52, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >> Interesting. I don't think I would go so far as to claim that WoW was >> unethical...just "uninteresting" ;) But that's just me. This is at least >> one >> thing the videogame world does that I do consider unethical: >> Proprietary/Closed platforms. But that's not just a videogame thing, of >> course. I consider proprietary/closed platforms in general to be >> unethical. >> (Oh crap, I think I can feel myself turning into Stallman!) >> > > (On the upside, that means you get to grow an epic beard.) Heh, I actually do have a beard. Although it's not quite Stallman-level.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Max Samukha" wrote in message news:ien42a$26q...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/20/2010 08:43 AM, Walter Bright wrote: >> bearophile wrote: >>> Many games are like drugs. >> >> Not for me. I get bored with games. You don't get bored with drugs. > > You didn't play StarCraft when you were a teenager. I always got bored pretty quickly with RTSes. Pikmin's the only RTS that's held my attention for long, and it's very non-standard as far as RTSes go. I've always been more 2D platformer, 1990's single-player FPS, shmup, puzzle (not so much falling block though), action RPG, and adventure.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/19/10 14:52, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Daniel Gibson" wrote in message > news:mailman.37.1292790264.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Caligo wrote: >>> You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some >>> of >>> them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape >>> reality, >>> and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all >>> kinds >>> of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. >>> That >>> is why to me there is no honor in game development. >> >> This is bullshit. >> Of course there are games with that goal (WoW, ...), but this doesn't make >> game >> development in general "unhonorable". There are many games that are >> not like this, >> for example most single player only games.. you play them until the end or >> until >> you can't get any further and that's it.. maybe you play them again in >> the future, but >> it's not like a constant addiction. (I'm not saying that multi player >> games are generally >> more "dangerous" or anything, single player games are just an example >> everybody >> should be able to comprehend) >> There are also game developers who openly label games like WoW "unethical", >> e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blow >> > > Interesting. I don't think I would go so far as to claim that WoW was > unethical...just "uninteresting" ;) But that's just me. This is at least one > thing the videogame world does that I do consider unethical: > Proprietary/Closed platforms. But that's not just a videogame thing, of > course. I consider proprietary/closed platforms in general to be unethical. > (Oh crap, I think I can feel myself turning into Stallman!) > (On the upside, that means you get to grow an epic beard.)
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Christopher Nicholson-Sauls Wrote: > That's a (sadly common) problem with people, though; not with games. > The same can be validly stated for television (which I usually avoid, > anyhow), sports, over-reliance on restaurants (a personal pet peeve), > and checking the D newsgroups... oh shi- I hope Walter won't spend 6 hours per day checking the D newsgroups... :3
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Nick Sabalausky Wrote: > Yea, and another thing is the matter of art in general: If you're an > ultra-utilitarian like Christopher seems to be (and even most programmers > aren't ultra-utilitarian), then art can be seen as lacking significant > contribution to society. I think, the effect of art is quite tangible, so I see no reason to not call it utilitarian.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/19/10 14:00, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Caligo" wrote in message > news:mailman.30.1292776925.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some >> of >> them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape >> reality, >> and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all >> kinds >> of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. >> That >> is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said >> it's >> worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the >> expense >> of people like you. >> > > The old "games as drugs" argument. > > First of all, anyone who's a slave to psychological tricks is an idiot > anyway. Casinos use many psychological tricks to induce addiction and yet > most people are perfectly able to control themselves. > > Secondly, if you see movies, music, comics and novels as the same > "dishonorable escapism", then I'll grant that your reasoning is at least > logically sound, even though you're in an extremely tiny minority on that > viewpoint. If not, however, then you're whole argument crumbles into a giant > pile of blatant bullshit, and clearly far too much of an imbicile to even > continue discussing this with. > >> If it helps any, I'm not one of those baby boomers. I'm actually in my >> early twenties. So if you are going to insult me at least do it properly. >> > > Fine, but that does make you the exception. > >> You sound way too angry and unhappy. > > I just have no tolerance for such obvious lies and idiocy. > >> Instead of playing video games, you >> should definitely pick up Ruby if you haven't already. I hear it's >> "designed to make programmers happy." >> > > I realize you mean that in jest, but I actually have been using Ruby (Rake) > as the build system for a big web project. It gets the job done, but I'm not > exactly impressed with it. > Take a look at Thor sometime. It's a replacement for Rake, and for some jobs can be better. Rails/3.x is apparently adopting it (or has adopted it... I haven't made the jump to 3 yet). https://github.com/wycats/thor -- Chris N-S
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/20/10 04:25, Max Samukha wrote: > On 12/19/2010 09:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >>> >> >> Assuming you meant that as a sarcastic counter-example: There may be >> ways in >> which they make life suck less, but *overall*, they're generally >> considered >> to make life suck *more*. So the "make life suck less" rule still holds. >> >> Although, if you meant it seriously then nevermind: The whole >> drug-legalization issue is one of the few debates I actively avoid :) >> > > I have no clear opinion about games, though I do believe they carry some > similarity with drugs in the way they make a person neglect stuff > important for his survival in the reality he was born into. That's a (sadly common) problem with people, though; not with games. The same can be validly stated for television (which I usually avoid, anyhow), sports, over-reliance on restaurants (a personal pet peeve), and checking the D newsgroups... oh shi- -- Chris N-S
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Caligo Wrote: > You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of > them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, > and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds > of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That > is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said it's > worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the expense > of people like you. The fact is all humans build their own reality - yes - because they're not fond of the raw nature. What you try to say is actually "Hey, they live different lives! HATEHATEHATE!!!"
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/19/2010 09:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Assuming you meant that as a sarcastic counter-example: There may be ways in which they make life suck less, but *overall*, they're generally considered to make life suck *more*. So the "make life suck less" rule still holds. Although, if you meant it seriously then nevermind: The whole drug-legalization issue is one of the few debates I actively avoid :) I have no clear opinion about games, though I do believe they carry some similarity with drugs in the way they make a person neglect stuff important for his survival in the reality he was born into.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/20/2010 08:43 AM, Walter Bright wrote: bearophile wrote: Many games are like drugs. Not for me. I get bored with games. You don't get bored with drugs. You didn't play StarCraft when you were a teenager.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
bearophile wrote: Many games are like drugs. Not for me. I get bored with games. You don't get bored with drugs.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Games as worthless as movies and music or any kind of art. -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said it's worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the expense of people like you. You are right saying games suck, since the new generation "games" are not games, they are just garbage "simulators". But you should understand, for this kind of things there is always good and a bad practice. Popularity favors bad practices better than good. Can you say movies suck? or music in general? This is exactly same. You guys gave an example to a very bad practice, a corporation, by definition(?) nothing but profit. Now i am going to tell you about a good practice. Outcast - Probably most of you never heard of it. For me, it had everything that define a game.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message news:ielrdu$2p8...@digitalmars.com... > "Daniel Gibson" wrote in message > news:mailman.37.1292790264.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Caligo wrote: >>> You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why >>> some of >>> them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape >>> reality, >>> and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all >>> kinds >>> of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. >>> That >>> is why to me there is no honor in game development. >> >>This is bullshit. >>Of course there are games with that goal (WoW, ...), but this doesn't make >>game >>development in general "unhonorable". There are many games that are >>not like this, >>for example most single player only games.. you play them until the end or >>until >>you can't get any further and that's it.. maybe you play them again in >>the future, but >>it's not like a constant addiction. (I'm not saying that multi player >>games are generally >>more "dangerous" or anything, single player games are just an example >>everybody >>should be able to comprehend) >>There are also game developers who openly label games like WoW >>"unethical", >>e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blow >> > > Interesting. I don't think I would go so far as to claim that WoW was > unethical...just "uninteresting" ;) But that's just me. This is at least > one thing the videogame world does that I do consider unethical: > Proprietary/Closed platforms. But that's not just a videogame thing, of > course. I consider proprietary/closed platforms in general to be > unethical. (Oh crap, I think I can feel myself turning into Stallman!) > s/This is at least one/There is at least one/
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Daniel Gibson" wrote in message news:mailman.37.1292790264.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Caligo wrote: >> You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some >> of >> them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape >> reality, >> and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all >> kinds >> of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. >> That >> is why to me there is no honor in game development. > >This is bullshit. >Of course there are games with that goal (WoW, ...), but this doesn't make >game >development in general "unhonorable". There are many games that are >not like this, >for example most single player only games.. you play them until the end or >until >you can't get any further and that's it.. maybe you play them again in >the future, but >it's not like a constant addiction. (I'm not saying that multi player >games are generally >more "dangerous" or anything, single player games are just an example >everybody >should be able to comprehend) >There are also game developers who openly label games like WoW "unethical", >e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blow > Interesting. I don't think I would go so far as to claim that WoW was unethical...just "uninteresting" ;) But that's just me. This is at least one thing the videogame world does that I do consider unethical: Proprietary/Closed platforms. But that's not just a videogame thing, of course. I consider proprietary/closed platforms in general to be unethical. (Oh crap, I think I can feel myself turning into Stallman!)
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Caligo wrote: > You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of > them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, > and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds > of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That > is why to me there is no honor in game development. This is bullshit. Of course there are games with that goal (WoW, ...), but this doesn't make game development in general "unhonorable". There are many games that are not like this, for example most single player only games.. you play them until the end or until you can't get any further and that's it.. maybe you play them again in the future, but it's not like a constant addiction. (I'm not saying that multi player games are generally more "dangerous" or anything, single player games are just an example everybody should be able to comprehend) There are also game developers who openly label games like WoW "unethical", e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blow
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Patrick Down wrote: bearophile Wrote: Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of warcraft :-) He does however write games sometimes: http://www.classicempire.com/ I've never played WoW, but I have played Empire, and let me tell you, it wastes a lot more than 6 hours a day! Yes, Empire has been blamed for many students flunking out of university, and at least one divorce!
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Christopher Nicholson-Sauls" wrote in message news:iekles$79...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/18/10 14:12, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message >> news:iej46p$42...@digitalmars.com... >>> "Caligo" wrote in message >>> news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to society. I've rarely played any, >>> >>> I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentious bullshit. >>> First >>> of all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" >>> considering the "I've rarely played any". >>> >>> But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine >>> any >>> more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the >>> endeavors generally considered to be the biggest contributions to >>> society >>> are *only* significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they >>> do: they make life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. >>> >>> Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there >>> (mostly >>> baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, >>> interestingly >>> enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they >>> actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentious crap? Fuck, they >>> all remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways >>> to >>> benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time >>> by >>> now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever >>> done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless >>> wanker.) >>> >> >> Since it apparently isn't obvious to some people: things don't have to be >> dull to qualify as a significant a contribution. >> >> >> > > There's also the classic example: a game was instrumental in the > development of UNIX. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Travel_(video_game) > > This wasn't arbitrary either; it was something Thompson wanted to do, > and he needed a better OS to do it in... so his toy got new polish. > Some of this polish became things we now take for granted and hardly > know how to live without (like a hierarchial filesystem). > > Do I mean to say that without the game there would be no UNIX? No; but > I do mean to say that games have *always* been a valuable tool for > finding the limits of systems, and for inspiring innovative ways to > expand those limits. > > The same research and development that provided pixel shaders to game > developers, also provided them to medical imaging developers. The same > that provided CPU technologies such as SSE to enable more complex > simulations in games, also provide for more complex simulations in > supercomputers. And many of these sort of technologies were original > conceived just to make games more awesome. Amazing. > > So no, games in and of themselves don't contribute anything -- if you > don't count fun, and honestly, I do count it -- but they have been a > driving force behind a lot of innovation. > Yea, and another thing is the matter of art in general: If you're an ultra-utilitarian like Christopher seems to be (and even most programmers aren't ultra-utilitarian), then art can be seen as lacking significant contribution to society. But if you do believe in the value of art and still cherry-pick videogames as dishonorable or lacking significant contribution, then you're just simply being a dumbfuck and an elitist (like Roger Ebert).
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Caligo" wrote in message news:mailman.30.1292776925.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some > of > them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape > reality, > and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all > kinds > of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. > That > is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said > it's > worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the > expense > of people like you. > The old "games as drugs" argument. First of all, anyone who's a slave to psychological tricks is an idiot anyway. Casinos use many psychological tricks to induce addiction and yet most people are perfectly able to control themselves. Secondly, if you see movies, music, comics and novels as the same "dishonorable escapism", then I'll grant that your reasoning is at least logically sound, even though you're in an extremely tiny minority on that viewpoint. If not, however, then you're whole argument crumbles into a giant pile of blatant bullshit, and clearly far too much of an imbicile to even continue discussing this with. > If it helps any, I'm not one of those baby boomers. I'm actually in my > early twenties. So if you are going to insult me at least do it properly. > Fine, but that does make you the exception. > You sound way too angry and unhappy. I just have no tolerance for such obvious lies and idiocy. > Instead of playing video games, you > should definitely pick up Ruby if you haven't already. I hear it's > "designed to make programmers happy." > I realize you mean that in jest, but I actually have been using Ruby (Rake) as the build system for a big web project. It gets the job done, but I'm not exactly impressed with it.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Max Samukha" wrote in message news:iekuac$qr...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/18/2010 10:03 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Caligo" wrote in message >> news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>> >>> IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to >>> society. I've rarely played any, >> >> I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentous bullshit. First >> of >> all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" >> considering the "I've rarely played any". >> >> But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine >> any >> more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the >> endevors >> generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society are >> *only* >> significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they do: they >> make >> life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. > > I hear you! People please legalize drugs. They make my life suck so much > less. > Assuming you meant that as a sarcastic counter-example: There may be ways in which they make life suck less, but *overall*, they're generally considered to make life suck *more*. So the "make life suck less" rule still holds. Although, if you meant it seriously then nevermind: The whole drug-legalization issue is one of the few debates I actively avoid :)
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Caligo: > Game companies use all kinds > of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That > is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said it's > worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the expense > of people like you. Many games are like drugs. That's very bad. But people need to play too, and there are instructive games too, for example games that develop your intuition about how dynamic systems work (SimCity and its followers), there are some smart games too. This is a game, but it's not so terrible for the mind of people, it's not a bad drug: http://armorgames.com/play/2205/light-bot Bye, bearophile
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Patrick Down wrote: > bearophile Wrote: >> Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of >> warcraft :-) > He does however write games sometimes: http://www.classicempire.com/ I've never played WoW, but I have played Empire, and let me tell you, it wastes a lot more than 6 hours a day! I've been hesitant to play another round after last time, when I spent almost a full week just conquering the world. Got way behind on my work. I personally like the DOS version best. It reminds me so much of some of my early games. Same beautiful graphics and easy controls.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
You are absolutely right; life sucks for many people, and that's why some of them choose to play video games. It gives them a chance to escape reality, and game companies exploit this to make money. Game companies use all kinds of psychology in their games to keep you playing as long as possible. That is why to me there is no honor in game development. Also, I never said it's worthless; they make tons of money, and that's almost always at the expense of people like you. If it helps any, I'm not one of those baby boomers. I'm actually in my early twenties. So if you are going to insult me at least do it properly. You sound way too angry and unhappy. Instead of playing video games, you should definitely pick up Ruby if you haven't already. I hear it's "designed to make programmers happy." On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Caligo" wrote in message > news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > > > IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to > > society. I've rarely played any, > > I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentous bullshit. First of > all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" > considering the "I've rarely played any". > > But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine any > more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the > endevors > generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society are *only* > significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they do: they make > life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. > > Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there (mostly > baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, interestingly > enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they > actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentous crap? Fuck, they all > remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways to > benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time by > now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever > done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless wanker.) > > >
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
bearophile Wrote: > Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of > warcraft :-) He does however write games sometimes: http://www.classicempire.com/
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Seeing the enemy being literally eaten by hundreds of upgraded zerglings has no comparison. :-)
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 05:19:50 -0500 bearophile wrote: > Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of > warcraft :-) rather The Battle for Wesnoth ;-) Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/18/2010 10:03 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "Caligo" wrote in message news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to society. I've rarely played any, I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentous bullshit. First of all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" considering the "I've rarely played any". But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine any more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the endevors generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society are *only* significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they do: they make life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. I hear you! People please legalize drugs. They make my life suck so much less. Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there (mostly baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, interestingly enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentous crap? Fuck, they all remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways to benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time by now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless wanker.) Countless hours of my life have gone to waste while I've been killing zergs and protos. Still, my life sucks so much less because of that gorgeous feeling the unpunished killing gives me. The only thing I keep regretting (at the rare moments when I am not high) is I could have created something useful instead. Maybe, yet another programming language, in which more cool games could have been written.
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/19/10 04:19, bearophile wrote: > Christopher Nicholson-Sauls: > >> So no, games in and of themselves don't contribute anything -- if you >> don't count fun, and honestly, I do count it -- but they have been a >> driving force behind a lot of innovation. > > Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of > warcraft :-) > > Bye, > bearophile Touché. ;) But I said 'game' not 'cult.' :D -- Chris N-S
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
Christopher Nicholson-Sauls: > So no, games in and of themselves don't contribute anything -- if you > don't count fun, and honestly, I do count it -- but they have been a > driving force behind a lot of innovation. Yet I hope Walter will not waste 6 hours every day *playing* World of warcraft :-) Bye, bearophile
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
On 12/18/10 14:12, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message > news:iej46p$42...@digitalmars.com... >> "Caligo" wrote in message >> news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>> >>> IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to >>> society. I've rarely played any, >> >> I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentious bullshit. First >> of all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" >> considering the "I've rarely played any". >> >> But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine any >> more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the >> endeavors generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society >> are *only* significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they >> do: they make life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. >> >> Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there (mostly >> baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, interestingly >> enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they >> actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentious crap? Fuck, they >> all remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways to >> benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time by >> now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever >> done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless >> wanker.) >> > > Since it apparently isn't obvious to some people: things don't have to be > dull to qualify as a significant a contribution. > > > There's also the classic example: a game was instrumental in the development of UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Travel_(video_game) This wasn't arbitrary either; it was something Thompson wanted to do, and he needed a better OS to do it in... so his toy got new polish. Some of this polish became things we now take for granted and hardly know how to live without (like a hierarchial filesystem). Do I mean to say that without the game there would be no UNIX? No; but I do mean to say that games have *always* been a valuable tool for finding the limits of systems, and for inspiring innovative ways to expand those limits. The same research and development that provided pixel shaders to game developers, also provided them to medical imaging developers. The same that provided CPU technologies such as SSE to enable more complex simulations in games, also provide for more complex simulations in supercomputers. And many of these sort of technologies were original conceived just to make games more awesome. Amazing. So no, games in and of themselves don't contribute anything -- if you don't count fun, and honestly, I do count it -- but they have been a driving force behind a lot of innovation. -- Chris N-S
Re: Game development is worthless? WTF? (Was: Why Ruby?)
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message news:iej46p$42...@digitalmars.com... > "Caligo" wrote in message > news:mailman.5.1292651710.4588.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> >> IMO there is no honor in game development as it contributes nothing to >> society. I've rarely played any, > > I gotta jump on this as being a giant load of pretentious bullshit. First > of all, there's the patently obvious "how in the world would you know?" > considering the "I've rarely played any". > > But more importantly, games make life suck less - I can't even imagine any > more significant contribution to society than that. Even all of the > endeavors generally considered to be the biggest contributions to society > are *only* significant contributions *because* that's exactly what they > do: they make life suck less, and are therefore well-regarded. > > Seriously, what up with all those presumptuous assholes out there (mostly > baby boomer dinos and their even more anachronistic parents, interestingly > enough) who have barely ever touched a videogame and yet figure they > actually have reason to believe such absurd pretentious crap? Fuck, they > all remind me of that pompous Roger Ebert douchebag. (Speaking of ways to > benefit society, when's he finally gonna keel over? Isn't it about time by > now? And speaking of "contributions to society" what the fuck's he ever > done? Collect a salary just to spout off opinions? Fucking useless > wanker.) > Since it apparently isn't obvious to some people: things don't have to be dull to qualify as a significant a contribution.
