Azarkon

Not graduate degrees. Well, not in the areas we're talking about (computer science & IT I assume?) To get into a typical graduate program at, say, Stanford or MIT, you need to be pretty much top of the field. They accept ~30-40 people a semester out of an application pool of the best graduates out of college. I've not met a single graduate of such universities that did not work their asses off, so it's likely deserved :D Of course, the same cannot be said for, say, political science which you can get just by being the son of a former president " In my experience this is true as well. Game development is not rocket science - it's art and alot of grunt work. Universities do not teach you programming. Art is learned at trade schools (or independently). Since most game development teams primarily consist of a dozen programmers and several dozens of artists / designers, it's quite obvious a degree isn't going to help much. However, the same argument was made for software developers in general back in the day, and a decade later academics are suddenly important. While I doubt that game development will ever get to this stage (because it remains a primarily artistic, rather than scientific, discipline), there is clearly a need: as technology evolves and the need for sophistication increases, research & development might end up a pretty big part of future companies. You can make games today without a inkling of scientific knowledge, but the games you make are fundamentally limited by the technology you employ. Game development is inevitably tied to technological progress, as the genre itself evolves in parallel: and so the tech-savvy will be the ones to make the next big jump, especially with regards to such important areas as immersion (graphics, sounds, voice synthesis, etc.) and AI. And then there are the game development schools... The discipline is young enough that a degree in game development is not, as of yet, important - because the principles of the trade have not yet solidified as, say, film techniques. But judging by the advancement of a film school degree these days, I can say with confidence that the time is not far off when such specialized education would give you the edge. After all, what these trade schools typically provide is not so much formal education as a disciplined, creative environment in which you could develop your demos and your portfolios. Self-education is nice and all, but I'm pretty confident (after seeing so many mod groups crash and burn) that working with others and under the guidance of experienced developers is far more efficient.

Oh, I'm not contending that. But understand that the NWN OC was hardly representative of a concentrated, unified effort at making a good RPG. It was meant to showcase the toolset, if I'm not mistaken, and suffered as a result from being made by the same generic framework - a fact the devs admitted to later. Compare the community mods or the NWN OC to a concentrated professional effort like BG/BG2 and you can easily tell the difference.

Jack, your posting style pretty much proves my point, and the exchange between you and Nick is almost straight out of the pattern I presented. (Notice, in particular, your dependency on facts, your repeated attacks on liberals, and your confidence in Republican maturity; now compare that to some of the more "wavy" posts on this thread where people against you are either refusing to offer evidence or taking the route of philosophical/ideological rhetoric). I don't think I necessarily visit sites that skew to the left (though this one certainly might): after all, ALOT of FPS/MMOG gamers are right-wing, moreso because many of them are off-duty soldiers. I've accumulated a significant amount of my observations on sites where the typical political debate ends up with a few unrelenting liberals arguing against masses of conservatives and self-proclaimed Republicans. Perhaps what I'm sensing here is a divide between the extremists on either side and the moderates. It could be, as you say, that DU is a cesspool of anti-American sentiments and that they represent the state of the modern ultra-left. But clearly, non-political message boards do not tend to attract the extremists and tends to be more representative of the average politically-conscious but typically moderate poster. That might explain why when liberals post on these boards they tend not to be the flag burning types, and might reveal a important principle - which is that people in general share a sense of common tendency that they attribute to their particular political philosophies. Consequently, many people tend to have misconceptions of the *other* side, which they demonize by association with the extremists of that side, without noticing that they themselves would never want to be associated with their own extremists. Anyhow, food for thought and let's keep the liberal-bashing down to an acceptable level :D

Chuck Norris is about to roundhouse kick this thread.

If we adopt the preconceptions of early cinema as a continuation of existing mediums, might we not say the same for games? "Epic story," "cinematic quality," "full motion video," "the fear in the orc's eyes," - Them are fighting words, at least to those over at the Codex. Seems to me modern gaming is as lost towards its aesthetic peculiarity as film was back in the days of moving-pictures and radio-with-images. Lacking a clear understanding of principle building blocks, the industry gravitates towards the poles it *does* understand: cinema and literature. No wonder reviews of stellar gameplay are reduced to well-worded opinions, while critics zero in on the literary qualities of PS:T as an unambiguous sign of the genre's approach to "high art." No offense to PS:T fans (for I also love the game), but I was much moreso "moved" in Starcraft and Everquest than I ever was in PS:T, though of course for different reasons. The maturity of a genre may perhaps be measured by the independence of its aesthetic sensibility. But also, I think, the degree to which we can articulate why great games are "great" in a systematic manner. Criticism, it has often been said, is an afterthought: the branding of a work as "art" comes first - from gut feelings. To recognize games as "art," then, is as simple as recalling the instances whence you were struck with awe. To speak of it in concrete, convincing terms - a practice most game reviewers have yet to learn - is much more difficult, and mayhaps the sign of an art form's coming of age.

The cohesion and productivity of most enthusiast-comprised development groups are, at best, lacking. This tendency is unsurprising: enthusiasm is seldom sustained in the face of adversity unless backed by cold, hard cash. Sure, you'll find a few who care enough to give it all for love of the craft, but their work is becoming increasingly marginalized in a market where success is synonymous with polish and quality. I don't mean to trash indies, but games do require a huge amount of grunt work and depending on a covenant of idea-men for sustained effort is often a recipe for ruin. Hence the rarity of success among indie games of professional ambition, especially those not mods of existing games. But even mods, at least ambitious mods, are beyond the capabilities of most enthusiasts. As far as I know, the "cost" of modern games rise largely from graphical assets: the number of artists required to churn out the necessary content, and quality assurance: the heel of software development. An indy game might get away with subpar 2D graphics, but does so largely to the chagrin of enthusiasts, whose visions of grandeur cannot be satisfied by a game far behind the times. A mod using a professional engine suffers from the lack of artists (obviously) unless its goals are principally revisionary. Consequently, that's what successful mods typically are: they mod the rules a tad, add a few new models, and try to make the most of existing assets. Since we're talking about RPGs here, the problem worsens. RPGs, unlike FPSs and strategy games, are primarily games of content. Their quality is often analogized to cinematic quality, which implies the unity of graphical, musical, textual, and game-mechanical assets. Consequently, revisionary modding works a hell of alot less well in RPGs. There's a value-analytic reason why the vast majority of FPS and RTS mods refuse to include a single-player campaign, but what is a RPG if not a single-player campaign? You certainly can't add a half dozen monsters to a RPG, change around the combat rules, and call yourself a dedicated enthusiast. You've got to create an entirely new game: complete with its own story, characters, and dynamics. When people dream of making RPGs, this is what they dream. Toolsets like NWN ease the pain of indie development at the expense of quality. For fans, this is an acceptable trade-off, but let me ask you this: when was the last time a enthusiast-made module made you shiver in ecstasy the same way a professional effort did? I've seen plenty of modules that were obviously made by designers of caliber, but all of them have the same flaw: they are built ontop of a generic engine, and lacking the unique polish of a concentrated, unified effort, can never hope to catapult themselves beyond the walls of mere excellence.

We have to make a distinction between everday common sense capitalism and legislated ultra-copyright capitalism. One can be enforced, the other cannot - except under a totalitarian form of government. Honestly, how are you going to prevent people from sharing things with their friends? And do you really think that people want to live in a world where sharing is illegal? Mass digital sharing is simply an extension of what people have been doing for ages, and while going after popular distribution sites might mitigate the effects, going after individuals will merely stir public opinion against you.

Nope. I'm not really a Democrat, either, though I think I share more of their views than Republican ones. Regardless, the trends seem clear, and though there are obvious exceptions like Eldar, I have a real hard time imagining a Democrat "hard-liner" who argues like a Republican.

I've read my share of partisan bickering online, and as of late I've began to see patterns in the way self-proclaimed Republicans argue with self-proclaimed liberals/Democrats. To be sure, part of this has to do with the way these arguments usually begin - that is, with a liberal attack on policy and a Republican response. Nevertheless, if language is a gauge for attitude and psychology, forums may constitute an accurate measure of the personalities that attend to each party. With no further ado: The standard Republican argument tends to go like this: <sarcastic remark against liberals> <facts> <witty liberal bashing> <facts> <more witty liberal bashing> <some chest thumping> <sarcastic liberal bashing> <liberal idealism bashing with an emphasis on comparison with Republican pragmatism> <finish with a statement of confidence> The standard Democrat argument tends to be more like this: <facts> <Bush hate> <opinions> <more Bush hate> <exasperation at the other side's thickness> <adopts an explanatory/didactic tone> <call up liberal arts sources> <appeal to pathos> <finish either with doomsaying or idealistic generalizations> Obviously, the core elements are more important than their order, but it does lead to some interesting observations. For one, the Republican claim of liberal softies does not seem unjustified if we compare the posting styles of the two groups. On the other hand, Republican posters tend to rely on insults to appear "tough," and seldom miss the opportunity to belittle their opponents' intelligence (contrary to their claim that Democrats are the real mudslingers). Of course, these are only my observations based on the perusal of partisan bickering across different forums. Yours might differ - and I'd like to hear the difference, if you think my observations are flawed.

I just played the mod, and I concur with the assessment. This mod is tightly constructed and demonstrates an attention to detail. Its weaknesses are along the same lines: solid but not daring, well-crafted but not innovative. As with most competent "crime investigation" scenarios, the story has a twist - but once again, the key to discovering the twist lies not in ingenuity but in persistence. The player has no need to cross examine his witnesses, perform feints, or catch them in logical loopholes - the evidence, once discovered, is adopted by the guilty party just a tad too enthusiastically. But other than that caveat, the mod is well-written and certainly on par with Bioware's own scenarios.

Some initial thoughts: A Question of Loyalty: the most polished of the five mods I've played so far in terms of scripting and cohesion. Demonstrates a competent grasp of skill-based dialogue - the Codexers would love this - and utilizes a selection of interesting ideas. In one instance after examining a corpse, you are prompted to either forget about the sight or plan on burying it later. This technique seems to pre-empt a decision with consequences that are not immediately obvious, which would be a welcome addition to Bioware games. A Treasoner and a Brigand: better known as A Lesson in Double-checking Your Work. I am sure the Biowarians will be impressed by the existential angst of being stuck behind a locked door for all eternity. A Kafka-esque exercise in futility, to be sure. A Morbid Tale: Little girls, illithids, and devouring tentacles! No, this isn't hentai, but it comes close to being an exercise in frivolity. I can't attest to the seriousness of the writer here, but the mod, far from morbid, seems to oscillate between sinister villainly and random childplay, especially towards the end. The writing is impulsive, and the characterizations suffer a tad. Yet, perhaps that was the intent... Creature Quest: Competent writing, interesting ideas, and a beautiful scenery to boot... So why was I never drawn into the story? I think this mod demonstrates the problem with long-winded narratives in games - namely, that they bore the heck out of the player. Indeed, most of the mod is spent listening to the wolf's tale and while the sentences flicker with occasional brilliance, they simply do not make up for the tiresome shifting through blocks of text. Moreover, the characterizations suffer from a lack of plausible incentives: the melodrama is a bit hard to swallow, what with the man-turned wolf wanting his wife to think him dead, his wife going crazy over his wolfish transformation, and her notorious new lover literally falling dead. The scenario might have worked if we knew the characters more, but as it is comes as random as the wolf's offer to join you at the end. The Ultimate Solution: Heil Rolfe. A mod with a sense of humor, though perhaps a bit too cheesy in its tongue-and-cheek imitation of the Final Solution. Still, the writing is competent, though the choices are few. The characters are clear cut enough, but if the intent was comedy, the mod could've benefitted from a few more Hitler jokes. Hint: go for the moustache.

Llyranor, I like your idea, but admire your endurance more. Going through 300+ modules of pure writing is a hefty task no matter how you look at it. In the case of Bioware reviewers, paid work is paid work. But doing so strictly out of a hobbyist's interest is a monumental act of patience, to say the least That said, I'll be playing some of these mods, too, and chiming in from time to time.

I used to read Salvatore because there is a dire lack of good fantasy warfare. Most acclaimed authors tend to gloss over combat in favor of ideas and personalities, which earns them extra brownie points among the literati, but deviates from the epic/mythical structure of traditional fantasy. I, personally, prefer a dip of both on my escapist cuisine. But make no mistake, I'd no sooner read Salvatore for his characterizations than read Shakespeare for his combat scenes. To each their own strengths, and to page flipping their weaknesses.

College is easy. Graduate school at a prestigious institution? Now, that's hard. Fortunately, very few positions in the game industry require a masters or a Ph. D. At least, not yet.

Agreed. I hate it when I'm supposed to make dialogue choices where I'm not aware of the consequences (unless this is tied into the storyline, in which case the player's ignorance should be made obvious). It doesn't even have to be as extreme as Josh indicated. Could be something as simple as: "What is your name?" 1. "Kull, the toughest of all the lands!" 2. "Kull, the strongest man on earth!" 3. "Kull, of no real consequence." Choice 1 -> player gains +1 con. Choice 2 -> player gains +1 str. Choice 3 -> player gains nothing. I think the central issue is that the game needs to indicate (in-game, if possible) when the player is at a critical junction point where his actions can actually have dramatic consequences, and to, at the very least, hint at what those consequences may be. Success comes when the player's frame of mind is the same as his character's frame of mind as envisioned by the developer. Thus, if my character's supposed to be deciding between whether a man lives or dies, I shouldn't be under the impression that I'm really choosing between different jokes to tell. But this is a bit off-topic.

I thought that this was the point of non-linearity, and that non-linearity was rejected because of its "exponential" growth factor? I suppose the reason Bio chose to use one antagonist instead of many for the different endings is strictly due to the resource factor. That is, if you have ideas for two great villains, why make one game? (Speaking practically, not idealistically, in which case yes, multiple villains alongside multiple endings would be great)

Sounds like a great concept for a horror game :cool:

The US - longevity as an empire? Come on now. The US has not been an empire for more than 100-200 years, and only in the last hundred years or so has it become a superpower. The Roman Empire flourished longer than that, and Chinese dynastives far longer.

France can say whatever it wants to say. The first country to launch a pre-emptive strike via nuclear weapons will be the one to shoulder the blame, and I don't think it'll be France.

Are we incapable of fighting terrorism, incapable of rendering justice, unless we categorize those we fight against as the alien Other, as "them?"

What came first, the mentality or the reality?

What do you mean *I* can't? I just did. The people involved, though, apparently cannot and so they will suffer for it. Of course, their suffering may lead to eventual happiness. After all, to many people dying in a glorious holy war is infinitely preferrable to living in peace, so who am I to deny them of that? I am merely pointing out that Israel is currently a bigger security risk than any other nation on Earth. They're not exactly at fault here, but you can't deny the fact that their presence has been the source of recent instability

Which goes hand in hand with the historical cases of such figures emerging - the soldiers of his enemies respect him as a formidable, at times even heroic, opponent, but the civilians only look to him as a murderer. In this case, I'd say that the truth lies with the soldiers, because if you're going to say that this guy's nothing but a murderer who shouldn't sleep well at night, then you'd have to claim the same for every single US soldier in Iraq, as well.

No, but Israel certainly seems to be. Nowhere else in the world has there been such antagonism and military teeth gnashing than since Israel was placed smack in the middle of a hostile Middle East. There is certainly the argument that the world could've been spared a host of recent wars had Israel been located, say, smack in the middle of the US. But then, I guess that's the tragedy of history: you can't take it back.

If he were a master US sniper who's taken out 50+ terrorists, I've no doubt quite a few people on this board would be cheering him on. Unfortunately, as it is often the case in war, we forget that this is the kind of people who we typically glorify in our culture. Go to any Hollywood film and it's the action hero who's worshipped and cheered on. In the military, it's the guy who single-handedly takes out a squad that becomes a legend. And this guy here, Iraqi though he maybe and fake though he may turn out, is the beginning of a legend. In the ancient days, when war was frequent, the greatest heroes sung by the bards were war heroes, and they are consequently the most despised by their enemies. We are not so different today.