On 12 Sep 2006 at 6:38, Gibson Jonathan wrote: > Face it: If your making games you've forgotten more computer technology > than regular folk will ever know exists. Assuming this isn't your > first game job.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the *attitude* a person takes towards technology! I'm in games because I'm interested in telling a story, games happen to be the medium. I also write short stories. (And yes, if you're interested I would post a spare one to the list). Technology *itself* has no interest to me, just its uses. > It begs the question: Why are you ashamed of having technical knowledge? > Isn't it just another hat you can wear? Why do you have a problem with the fact that some people who can use technology don't view it as sacred? > I simply differ on your terms. No, you're being rude and insulting because I'm bursting your preconceptions. > Sure, function is important, but I simply argue it's best to > have both. Okay, so you care about it. I don't. I don't claim that anyone else should share my views, but don't speak for me. >Your arguing it's either-or. No, that is YOUR argument. What I said was that I don't rate how something looks in the criteria for if I will find something useful or not. Sure, once I've decided to get something, if I have 2 items which do it for the same price I'll pick the prettier. But that's litterally the last consideration on my list. > interface the iPod success proves Ease Of Use is a term with teeth. And interface is a pure useability issue. Thing is, my minidisk recorder is also easy to use. So why should I spend cash on something else? (the ability to record is, for me, required). > Sure, it could be better, Sure, it could be cheaper. So what? Time > will do that. Dream on. Future devices will have DRM lockdowns which make them considerably less useful. Heck, iPod's do for their legal tunes and its getting more restrictive every other update or so. To me, that's a pure restriction on function. > I'd use my mini-disc too, if it wasn't broken. Or even my old DAT > machine, but again, time has taken it's toll on moving parts. Shrug, mine isn't. When it does, or when someone shows me another device with a clear and useful advantage over my minidisk recorder will I look at getting something else. > with such pride over self-proclaimed reasoning skills and purity of Again, your assumption. I never typed anything of the sort. > let me give a little history Guess what? I could care less, since you're rude. > Your fooling nobody but yourself with this > usefulness-only mantra. I never said I was trying to fool anyone, you're just being a fool by assuming that I was trying to. I didn't say I was, you just went right ahead and assumed it. > your trying to ship a frivolous, > time-sucking, distraction of a game no-less! I'm shipping a story, in the form of a game. The medium is not the message. Rogue Trooper, for example, is basically a paen on the futility of war. > You apparently can't take criticism Yes, I can. But you're plain insulting - you're reading again and again things I never typed and are responding rudely to them. I haven't seen one piece of critisism, just techno-snobbery. > according to what you've offered to this conversation. I take a wider > view because I need versatile image generation & easy media > integration: found primarily on Macs since the dawn of this multimedia > era. Microsoft has been playing catchup a long time on this one. Oh completely. And the guys on 2000AD comics, same company and next door, *do* use Mac's. All the game dev guys use PC's, though, since every single tool we use is written for the PC - historical inertia, user base and the console developer tools keep it that way. There is no choice to the matter for the game developer. It's how it is, and you deal with it. (Ports are allready a cornered market...) > Re-iterative design cycles are there for a reason and user testing and Okay, two things: Firstly, game devs don't interact directly with users, in the main. That's what publishers do, and they return reports to the dev. No, it's not ideal but it's the publishers cash. We get new hires to play the games Second, you're trying to say that, somehow, an emphasis on function in my purchasing descisions - and that is what I've been talking about, pure and simple - carrys over to my game design work. Because it does and it doesn't - I'm quite aware of the aeesthetic angle of games, but I'm also one of the people who prefers a minimal interface for immersion. > allowing this Trojan beast into all reaches of our government and > business. *laughs* That's a case for Linux, *not* the Mac. > Explain yourself with some clarity - if you can. No, I've been perfectly plain. Stop making assumptions and it's quite clear. > Surprise, this isn't a pub pissing-match. You decided to be a tech-snob and to make assumptions, shrug, going on the offensive about your precious Mac's superiority. > Scratching my head wondering why you bother to hang here at all. Because most people here are actually intelligent. You seem intent on proving you're otherwise. If I want mindless wailing, I can go make fun of Something Awful or Duck and Cover. Really. AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
