The smallest artificial heart in the world, weighing only 11 grams, was enough to save life of an infant boy suffering a deadly disease. Italian doctors who completed the surgery say it kept the baby alive till a donor was found

bob_newman · 2012-05-25T00:46:43.072803+00:00

Fun fact: Notice the awkwardly placed line break before the player's name?

This is a cop-out: it's easier to make sure the player's name is never at the end of a long sentence than it is to write character width and kerning maps to determine whether a line break is necessary or not based on the length of the player's name - especially for a game that will be ported to multiple languages. If you play through the entire game, you'll notice the player's name is never placed on a line with more than one or two words before it.

This also allows them to use specially-colored glyphs to highlight certain words without worrying about awkward line breaks in the middle of a highlighted phrase because the player's name was too short or too long.

The more you knooooooooow!~

One-guy · 2012-05-25T00:41:42.733816+00:00

As a programmer, those points are quite possibly the most important things mentioned in the job listing (along with points #3 and #5). Right up there with salary. A shitty work environment and absurd funding milestones are about as bad as cutting the salary in half.

khell · 2012-05-24T23:32:41.720850+00:00

For sure, I hear you loud and clear. I'm in the same spot - working a dayjob to keep food on the table, and using the money to fund personal projects. I'm almost to the point where I make enough from my games to drop the dayjob and do it full time. <3

khell · 2012-05-24T20:39:34.700308+00:00

Again, you are resorting to ridiculous false dichotomies. There are tons of incredibly wealthy musicians, but if you take a look you'll notice that a very large chunk of them are good musicians who earned their money by writing and performing great music. Yes, some idiots will pander to the radio crowd and sell shitty pop, but we shouldn't let the behavior of those people taint our perception of the entire industry.

Earning money and being passionate about your art are not mutually exclusive, and often go hand in hand.

The only thing I can agree with you on is that money isn't very good as a sole motivator. But it certainly can be a motivator, and I think a lot of people try way too hard to pretend like they don't care about money, which only ends up hurting their art and passion.

khell · 2012-05-24T20:10:15.349503+00:00

In my opinion it is question of prioritisation, do you make games to make money or to make good games.

This is a dangerous false dichotomy: the two are not mutually exclusive.

I understand having some trepidation because of the sacrifices some large companies have made, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the profitability of the medium as a whole. Knowing how to spread your game to the highest number of people is an incredibly important part of being a game developer, and so is knowing how to raise the most money in order to fund future projects.

khell · 1 day

The only uncomfortable feelings generated by that quote are the ones that come from comparing video games to hard drugs. If you were to replace the word "addict" with "loyal fan," and change the drug references from "crack and heroin" to "solid gameplay and good multiplayer/social elements," I don't think you'd be having the same reaction you're having now.

Ultimately, there is almost no difference between "studying player behaviors" and "manipulating addicts." One is just a sugarcoated way of saying the same thing.

Nothing that was mentioned in this article indicates that we should go out of our way to say "fuck you" to our players. The only thing it's recommending is that we provide enough added value to keep our most devoted fans playing longer and paying more.

And yeah, I'll take the bait: game development is a business. It's a fun, wonderful business, and I have a lot of passion for doing it (and would probably continue doing it even if it wasn't profitable), but I also make money from it, which helps fund more games, pays for my veterinary bills, lets me buy things for my friends and family. You seem to be implying that making a little money is okay, but trying to unlock the full financial potential of a game is somehow evil or unethical, which is simply bullshit.

It's arguably unethical to sacrifice good things for the sake of money, but this article hasn't suggested anything of the sort. It doesn't recommend we start paywalling or doing any sort of Zynga bullshit: all it's saying is to try to find MTX or other revenue avenues for our most dedicated players. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

agatagopee · 1 day

I use the same brand, 90%! I worked my way up from the lower numbers, and now 90% is already starting to taste too sweet. Almost time for 99%, I think!

khell · 1 day

Wait... what mentality? Wanting to provide more value to your players, in order to earn the highest revenue to fund future projects?

Maybe I'm the weird one out, but the "making money is bad" mentality makes me uncomfortable.

theknightwhosays_nee · 1 day

I could not possibly have expressed myself better.

themisc · 1 day

Depends on whether you're talking ink or light. Yes in ink, no in light.

vegetable_offender · 1 day

My first thought.

JohnJohnMcLovin · 2 days

Small nitpick: Java != Javascript.

resonatingfury · 2 days

Skybox was assigned the wrong texture! :D

Pigs_On_The_Wing · 2 days

I try very hard to respect the opinions of people who view 3D as a cheap trick or a gimmick, but I'm of the persuasion that it is the same as color: a cinematic technology in its "Technicolor infancy" that should eventually become standard, once the technical kinks are worked out.

Saying that a movie is in 3D should be no more of a "feature" than saying that the movie is in color. Granted - there are crotchety hipsters out there (as well as serious film critics, I admit) who also believe color has damaged the media. Again, I try my best to let them have their own opinions, but I disagree with them entirely.

It should be no more appalling or interesting to see a great literary work rendered on stereoscopic film than to see it rendered in color, or with audio. The only reason anyone even takes notice of it is because the technology is new, frequently used incorrectly or excessively, and has some technical bugs left to squash (forced focus can lead to headaches and feels unnatural until you learn to let your eyes follow the camera).

That and the fact that ticket prices are higher.

volkovolkov · 2 days

Broccoli brothers, unite!

Apostrophe · 3 days

I don't why you're being downvoted: the nocebo effect is a very real effect, and it has been proven to be effective even if you're aware of it.

will121000 · 3 days

Okay, fine, I'll be the jackass.

You can't eat honor, compassion, chivalry, or the right thing.

(I'm just being pedantic. I loathe patent law, and ~~wouldn't blink twice if I had the opportunity to destroy it forever~~ think it needs serious reform, especially in the fields of software and interface design.)

sortofagamedev · 4 days

I completely agree with that, and I believe that Flash won't be going anywhere any time soon (and that its plugin penetration is the main reason for that).

The reason I think Unity has any chance at all is because they're working on SWF export, which will allow them to play through FP's Stage3D. Of course, that's still Flash, anyway; the content is just being created in Unity.

sortofagamedev · 4 days

Just curious - why?

To clarify, my comment was specifically regarding game development. HTML5 is obviously superior for web development. :D

jetienne · 4 days

Flash isn't going to support mobile devices in the browser, it doesn't matter

This, a million times this.

Anyone developing games in Flash should be using AIR to publish to a native app, anyway. Nobody plays games from inside of a mobile browser.

Thesis_writing_red · 4 days

In the interest of useful science, be sure to also poll communities that don't have a hard-on for piracy and Gabe Newell.

NightInWhiteSatin2 · 4 days

Each of the three options has its strengths and weaknesses. Native code will give you the most control and power, but is also significantly more work that simply isn't needed unless your app has incredibly high performance requirements.

AIR (Flash) has the weakest runtime (until Stage3D support achieves higher penetration), but is also the easiest to develop for, and gives you the added benefit of "free" web deployment if you choose to go the sponsorship route, as well as "free" native desktop deployment for Mac/Windows if you go the Desura/Steam route. Of all of the options you listed, it has the widest array of deployment platforms: web (Mac/Windows/Linux), native app (iOS, Mac, Windows, Playbook), runtime app (Android [will be native in CS6.0], Linux), along with some web app hacks for Kindle/Nook.

Unity is a great balance between power and performance, but their plugin penetration is a lot lower than Flash. Fortunately, Flash/Stage3D support is planned, so Unity will also be able to take advantage of Flash's incredible penetration soon.

Native gives you the absolute highest performance, but is also the most work, and has very narrow deployment options.

If it were up to me, I'd use AIR/Flash for 2D stuff, Unity for 3D stuff (or 2D stuff that requires GPU acceleration instead of blitting), and native code for anything where maximum performance is mandatory and cross-platform development isn't a priority.

Personally, I love AIR for my 2D stuff, but if I were doing anything in 3D, I'd go with Unity - at least until Stage3D support on mobile catches up.

sortofagamedev · 6 days

No. Flash is being replaced by HTML5 for web development, but is still the king when it comes to casual game development. If Flash is ever replaced, it will be by Unity, not HTML5.

humblemoley · 6 days

Some humans have wonderful faces. This is one of those humans.

jusksmit

TROPHY CASE

jusksmit

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login