That's a compelling point of view, and judges may actually think
exactly this way. Especially considering mobile operators in the
Alliance (and may be Google too) will always prefer network connected
games to standalone as it drives their revenue up.
While Wi-fi army and Parallel Kingdoms are clearly type of games that
are enabled by the platofrm, if I abstract from the judging process
and think about man-hours to be spent/wasted playing this "innovative"
kind of games and tetris/puzzles/platformers, I think the winner will
not be so apparent. People are actually playing simpler games on
their phones while commuting (the most widespread usage model for
mobile games, I've been seeing almost every second person playing
something unsophisticated on mobile phone/PDA or reading in the
underground when I lived in a megapolis)
And being a successful mobile gaming platform(read: having tens of
good games ready) is especially important when platform starts (later
when Android is successful ISVs will take care of that and port
hundreds of games). So the entry like "gaming library", or "classic
games collection" are doing exactly that: placing tens of good games
(or tool to create them) on the table now when platform needs it. So
could be a good competitor to more sophisticated and innovative games,
but there are very few of them. (What else besides Wifi army and
Parallel Kingdoms by the way?)
On Apr 30, 12:06 am, Hielko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be very suprised if your games, and similair games, would make
> it to the top 50: simple because there is little innovation. Games
> like Wifi Army or Parallel Kingdoms will have a far better probability
> to make it in the top 50.
>
> That said: I hope for you that the judges don't share my opinion :)
>
> On Apr 29, 11:25 am, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Every APK has the Manifest and the others are, "other Android-specific
> > components" which includes my whole list. So, I think I meet the
> > "CowBay Standard".
>
> > On Apr 28, 11:33 pm, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Ho, but you are not implementing the ones below:
>
> > > >take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > >AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific components,
> > > >which
> > > >are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention those
> > > >android-specific api "constraints".
>
> > > CowBay says that if you are not implementing those than you've failed
> > > criteria 2. Based on your list above seems to me like you've
> > > failed. :)
>
> > > I'm just messing with you. I was being sarcastic with CowBay.
> > > I also implemented all the features you listed above except
> > > Orientation . It just doesn't make sense that every single application
> > > has to have LBS, or use content provider or Services. Some
> > > applications simply do not require this features. So no, I don't think
> > > that just because you did not implement these three things that it
> > > necessarily means that you failed criteria two.
>
> > > On Apr 28, 11:59 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Can you think of a submission that uses more Android features than
> > > > mine?
>
> > > > On Apr 28, 10:58 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I probably have the most performant and processing intensive use of
> > > > > the Android Platform showing the most effective use of the platforms
> > > > > 2D graphics capabilities. I also use compelling features including the
> > > > > following:
>
> > > > > * Vibration
> > > > > * Orientation
> > > > > * Animations
> > > > > * Touch Screen
> > > > > * Progress Bars/Dialogs
> > > > > * Lifecycle Implementation
> > > > > * And other Android specific features
>
> > > > > Accelerometer is the only major feature I am missing.
>
> > > > > On Apr 28, 7:24 pm, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I think my chances are slim, but not because I'm not making
> > > > > > effective
> > > > > > use of Android. From Judges perspective they will not know the
> > > > > > difference. I'm using touch functionality, a lot of the GUI
> > > > > > components, pop ups, etc, etc. Based on your logic even tberthel
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > a worse chance of winning than me. All he is doing is using the
> > > > > > drawing utilities from what I've seen from his demos. In fact, a lot
> > > > > > of the applications I've seen all they do is use the 3d or 2d
> > > > > > drawing
> > > > > > utilities and that is it. This is true specially for a lot of the
> > > > > > games.
>
> > > > > > On Apr 28, 9:11 pm, "Cow Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > i feel kinda sorry for your possibility to lose ADC, for it
> > > > > > > sounds like you
> > > > > > > fail ADC Judging Criteria 2, " Effective Use of the Android
> > > > > > > Platform" >:{)
>
> > > > > > > still wishing you good lucks....
>
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Incognito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > To: "Android Challenge" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:05 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Android/Applets/J2ME
>
> > > > > > > >sounds like your apps were originally designed and implemented
> > > > > > > >platform-agnostic. that is, they were not originally for android
> > > > > > > >because,
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >they had been, imho, it would not seem so easy as you describe.
>
> > > > > > > True, that was my goal. I wrote my code so that it would initially
> > > > > > > work on J2SE, J2ME, and Android. This forced me to write the
> > > > > > > business
> > > > > > > layer platform-agnostic and just write interfaces that were
> > > > > > > platform
> > > > > > > specific.
>
> > > > > > > >take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > > > > >AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific
> > > > > > > >components,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > >are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention those
> > > > > > > >android-specific api "constraints".
> > > > > > > >>how did you convert those?
>
> > > > > > > I'm not using LBS so no problem there. However, if I were I would
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > put that behind a generic interface.
> > > > > > > Services - My application does not require to be running on the
> > > > > > > background so I didn't need to convert this.
> > > > > > > Android Intent, content provider - I didn't have to use this
> > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > so I did not have to create an interface for it. IPhone does has
> > > > > > > something very similar to this though.
> > > > > > > They pass URL's between applications.
>
> > > > > > > What I did have to create interfaces for are the drawing
> > > > > > > utilities,
> > > > > > > Threads, GUI objects, like buttons, text fields, text buttons,
> > > > > > > touch
> > > > > > > and key event handling, etc.
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 28, 8:32 pm, "Cow Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > sounds like your apps were originally designed and implemented
> > > > > > > > platform-agnostic. that is, they were not originally for
> > > > > > > > android because,
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > they had been, imho, it would not seem so easy as you describe.
>
> > > > > > > > take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > > > > > AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific
> > > > > > > > components,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention
> > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > android-specific api "constraints".
>
> > > > > > > > how did you convert those?
>
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Incognito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > To: "Android Challenge" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:02 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Android/Applets/J2ME
>
> > > > > > > > >>So, I'd guess if you want an iphone app in its native
> > > > > > > > >>platform, you're
> > > > > > > > >>going to have a much easier time just manually building it
> > > > > > > > >>after your
> > > > > > > > >>java version is done, then update it based on diffs.
>
> > > > > > > > At first glance that sounds like a really good idea. It would
> > > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > be true for small apps. i.e. A couple of thousand lines.
> > > > > > > > I have tens of thousands of line of code written (distributted
> > > > > > > > among
> > > > > > > > several applications), easily close to 100,000 lines, and more
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > 1000 automated unit test cases.
> > > > > > > > Trying to manually convert all this code to objective C would be
> > > > > > > > extremely tedious. I would never have the patience to rewrite
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > that I already wrote once in a language and that has been
> > > > > > > > tested and
> > > > > > > > debugged thoroughly. Automating this is the best route for me.
> > > > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > > when I want to make changes to my code I make the changes only
> > > > > > > > in Java
> > > > > > > > and then I run the utility to convert the code to Objective-C,
> > > > > > > > thus
> > > > > > > > porting the changes over to Objective-C.
>
> > > > > > > > >>Even if objective-C has every language feature of Java, and
> > > > > > > > >>is syntactially very similar (or easily transformable), you
> > > > > > > > >>have all
> > > > > > > > >>the dependent libraries to worry about.
>
> > > > > > > > Is not as bad as you think. For the IPhone specific
> > > > > > > > functionality,
> > > > > > > > i.e. drawing, touch events, key events, I'm using interfaces
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > abstract or hide the actual API. So my applications speak to my
> > > > > > > > interfaces and then my interfaces speak to the actual platform
> > > > > > > > APIs.
> > > > > > > > Very similiar to what Java Standard Edition does.
> > > > > > > > So all I have to do is connect my interfaces with the actual
> > > > > > > > hardware
> > > > > > > > or platform specific API's and I'm all set to go.
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 4:18 pm, "Kevin Galligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I don't know your software background, and I don't know what
> > > > > > > > > objective-C is like, but I'd highly suggest not doing that. I
> > > > > > > > > imagine
> > > > > > > > > the commercial thing sucks. Rolling your own would be
> > > > > > > > > incredibly
> > > > > > > > > painful. Even if objective-C has every language feature of
> > > > > > > > > Java, and
> > > > > > > > > is syntactially very similar (or easily transformable), you
> > > > > > > > > have all
> > > > > > > > > the dependent libraries to worry about. I'm sure the
> > > > > > > > > commercial thing
> > > > > > > > > does a partial conversion, which would then require you to
> > > > > > > > > massage it
> > > > > > > > > into a working application. When you want to update your
> > > > > > > > > original
> > > > > > > > > app, you'd then wind up manually updating both anyway.
>
> > > > > > > > > So, I'd guess if you want an iphone app in its native
> > > > > > > > > platform, you're
> > > > > > > > > going to have a much easier time just manually building it
> > > > > > > > > after your
> > > > > > > > > java version is done, then update it based on diffs.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ...
>
> read more ยป
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Android Challenge" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-challenge?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
