Upon finding out that AT&T was encouraging employees to complain about net neutrality, I felt compelled to leave my own comment on the FCC's net neutrality site. I was shocked to find more than half the comments (of the sample I read) going against net neutrality, and all of them written by people who clearly did not understand the issue. This riled me up a bit, and so I wrote my own entry and actually commented on some opponents' entries. I am very thankful for Comcast providing me ammo when doing the latter. Anyway, the following is the comment I posted to their site. I assume anyone reading this knows the internet is not a big truck, so feel free to comment.
It seems rather unfortunate, but a cursory glance at many comments would suggest many people against net neutrality don't actually understand it, nor how a network actually works. Without the FCC's intervention regarding Comcast's throttling of bittorrent traffic, many customers (likely forced to use Comcast since the local monopoly cable companies are allotted) would be not be able to use that particular technology. And while we can acknowledge that bittorrent is commonly used for pirating, it also has many legal uses, many which have not been fully evaluated. Net neutrality is important in maintaining no protocol or packet is blocked because the network owner disagrees with the content or the source.
However, I am uncertain if regulation would even be necessary if there were open access to network facilities (although I question if they must go hand in hand). As stated in this report, http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE59E16J20091015, open access forced lower prices for higher speeds, areas the US could certainly use a boost (the fact that this nation is so far down the food chain despite inventing the internet and controlling ICANN is a disgrace, but I digress). Open access would also foster competition, thus making irrelevant anyone choosing to throttle traffic.
Regarding those speaking out against a certain "search engine" (please, we know you're attacking Google), you should note that Google Voice is not a telephony service. Google Voice acts as a forwarding (free, when used within the US) service between two pre-existing numbers. Users who have a number with Google Voice only attach that number to pre-existing phone numbers, and are serviced under those respective providers.
The one area I question net neutrality is with regards to wireless networks, due to the nature of wireless networks requiring broadcast communication, etc. Even in this regard though, I am willing to side with net neutrality, as any network provider whose network suffers (AT&T and the iPhone, perhaps?) should be forced to improve their network (innovating when necessary) rather than prohibiting their customers from legitimate uses.
10.21.2009
4.24.2009
Thoughts on Assassin's Creed
I just finished playing Assassin's Creed (or, at least I think I did, more on that later) on XBox 360. At the moment, the thing that sticks out the most is the drastic change in core gameplay leading up to the end of the game.
While the game welcomes users to use stealth and strategy while playing, in general it's not always required. To some extent, I would actually say this was detrimental to the game, as I would occasionally make a mistake in the execution of an assassination, and then just swing my sword around to finish the missions. Not nearly as cool as jumping from the shadows, but I digress. The point which I am trying to expand upon is that, although Assassin's Creed expects some stealth, there are many opportunities to be a bumbling brunt and just battle hordes of guards. However, the emphasis is obviously placed on using stealth and crowds to sneak about on missions, and actually running away in order to avoid combat when caught.
Yet, for some reason, the last two assassinations actually force the user to just hack away at enemies - no alternative options are provided in which the user can use stealth. It is as if the user was playing a completely different game entirely. And while the crowd fighting can be entertaining, it is still buggy and not the reason I'm playing the game. And while I'm on the topic, I really hope to see sequels allow the user to manipulate enemies a bit more during fights. With such an emphasis on crowds, I very much expect to be able to push guards into each other.
Another aspect of the game I found disappointing was the use of beggars. Instead of providing a potentially useful ally (beggars assist you if you are kind to them) or attempting to teach some sort of useful social message, Ubisoft just presented an annoyance to users. I suppose that the developers actually did the opposite of the latter suggestion, as beggars did nothing good for me and I always had to shove them about. The worst part is that the user isn't presented with an option - the beggars want money, but Altair carries no currency. What's the point?
And now the biggest question with Assassin's Creed - what the hell happened at the "end"? I really must put in end in quotes there, as the only way I knew I had arrived at that point was when I researched my latest achievement. While I am usually a fan of stories where the audience must draw their own conclusion, the game offered nothing even approaching closure. At least in Matrix Reloaded I had a screen saying "To be continued." The ending offered was more on par with something I would see before a season finale - not quite so good when I'm expected to shell out another $50 in two years and dedicate another twelve hours.
I don't mean to be overly critical here, though. I think Assassin's Creed had many amazing technical feats: the large cities, massive crowds, and so many climbable surfaces are just a few. The game was also pure fun too, even with the frequent annoyances such as misguided throwing knives and a character who refuses to arm himself in combat. Yet, I feel the game could have been so much more if the dev team met it's promise of a city which responded to your choices. As for the game's story, I'm still not sure how I feel about the almost cliched approach it took. The betrayal of the master was obvious quite quickly, and so the conspiracy felt almost half-baked (although if there is causation there I cannot be sure). Here's hoping the sequel can patch up these issues.
While the game welcomes users to use stealth and strategy while playing, in general it's not always required. To some extent, I would actually say this was detrimental to the game, as I would occasionally make a mistake in the execution of an assassination, and then just swing my sword around to finish the missions. Not nearly as cool as jumping from the shadows, but I digress. The point which I am trying to expand upon is that, although Assassin's Creed expects some stealth, there are many opportunities to be a bumbling brunt and just battle hordes of guards. However, the emphasis is obviously placed on using stealth and crowds to sneak about on missions, and actually running away in order to avoid combat when caught.
Yet, for some reason, the last two assassinations actually force the user to just hack away at enemies - no alternative options are provided in which the user can use stealth. It is as if the user was playing a completely different game entirely. And while the crowd fighting can be entertaining, it is still buggy and not the reason I'm playing the game. And while I'm on the topic, I really hope to see sequels allow the user to manipulate enemies a bit more during fights. With such an emphasis on crowds, I very much expect to be able to push guards into each other.
Another aspect of the game I found disappointing was the use of beggars. Instead of providing a potentially useful ally (beggars assist you if you are kind to them) or attempting to teach some sort of useful social message, Ubisoft just presented an annoyance to users. I suppose that the developers actually did the opposite of the latter suggestion, as beggars did nothing good for me and I always had to shove them about. The worst part is that the user isn't presented with an option - the beggars want money, but Altair carries no currency. What's the point?
And now the biggest question with Assassin's Creed - what the hell happened at the "end"? I really must put in end in quotes there, as the only way I knew I had arrived at that point was when I researched my latest achievement. While I am usually a fan of stories where the audience must draw their own conclusion, the game offered nothing even approaching closure. At least in Matrix Reloaded I had a screen saying "To be continued." The ending offered was more on par with something I would see before a season finale - not quite so good when I'm expected to shell out another $50 in two years and dedicate another twelve hours.
I don't mean to be overly critical here, though. I think Assassin's Creed had many amazing technical feats: the large cities, massive crowds, and so many climbable surfaces are just a few. The game was also pure fun too, even with the frequent annoyances such as misguided throwing knives and a character who refuses to arm himself in combat. Yet, I feel the game could have been so much more if the dev team met it's promise of a city which responded to your choices. As for the game's story, I'm still not sure how I feel about the almost cliched approach it took. The betrayal of the master was obvious quite quickly, and so the conspiracy felt almost half-baked (although if there is causation there I cannot be sure). Here's hoping the sequel can patch up these issues.
4.12.2009
ISPs are backwards in the US
Loved this article I recently came across: Time Warner to charge $150-Per-Month Unlimited Internet. Whereas most industrialized countries have cheap 20 MB - 100 MB downstream internet connections, most Americans are lucky they even have the privilege to pay large sums for 6 MB down (personally, I usually see my 7 MB at 2 MB, but that's a different story).
The beauty of the whole thing is that American ISPs are trying to claim that their infrastructure is too poor to handle large data transmissions, and instead of improving their service to some reasonable standard, they leverage monopolies to punish the consumer. I guess the big question here though is it just a ploy to prevent users from using Video On Demand services such as Hulu and iTunes instead of their cable service? Considering how much cable costs these days, and all the profit the cable providers would lose if they watched their customers pull back, the conspiracy doesn't seem too far fetched. And if this is the case, I wonder what may happen to net neutrality in the next couple of years?
Regardless, these recent moves seem fairly futile, and I just hope something is done so the country that invented the internet can at least provide its citizens with some competitive speeds.
The beauty of the whole thing is that American ISPs are trying to claim that their infrastructure is too poor to handle large data transmissions, and instead of improving their service to some reasonable standard, they leverage monopolies to punish the consumer. I guess the big question here though is it just a ploy to prevent users from using Video On Demand services such as Hulu and iTunes instead of their cable service? Considering how much cable costs these days, and all the profit the cable providers would lose if they watched their customers pull back, the conspiracy doesn't seem too far fetched. And if this is the case, I wonder what may happen to net neutrality in the next couple of years?
Regardless, these recent moves seem fairly futile, and I just hope something is done so the country that invented the internet can at least provide its citizens with some competitive speeds.
3.30.2009
GDC Sessions
While I wrote about my reflections upon GDC as a whole this year, I didn't really comment on any particular sessions. Truth be told, no session really stuck out this year like Creating a Character in DRAKE'S FORTUNE; instead, a collection of speakers sparked my interest and motivation to create games. So, which were they?
Clint Hocking's Fault Tolerance: From Intentionality to Improvisation showed a new flow to have in games, one in which designers stop punishing the player. This flow results from the user creating a plan of action, and then acting upon it over short periods of time, from one to the other. Most games break this flow by forcing intentional gameplay - the player dies and then goes back to some checkpoint. Improvisation suggests the user reflects upon what happen, how it changed the gameworld, etc (creating a new plan), and then acting upon it. While Clint suggested Bioshock accomplished this, I disagree in that the transitions could be smoother.
From CS to L4D: Creating Replayable Coop Experiences was interesting, well, for creating replayable coop experiences. This was likely a full sessions since it's a Valve design session, and rightfully so. The core idea behind the talk was simply force cooperation by punishing those who refuse to work as a team (using mechanics, not some force field, etc), while also creating randomness to break down the group on occasion. Fairly obvious, but I suppose the limited number of good co-op games establish how non-trivial this is (that, or companies are too lazy to change the status quo...).
I recall being disappointed with The Tech Behind the Tools of Insomniac Games, but in retrospective, hearing them discuss how their build system is pretty interesting for someone who has never worked in such large environments.
The GDC Microtalks had the highest idea/time value (not surprising since 10 talks in 1 hour). Jane McGonical's talk was, as always, inspiring and gave me some game design concepts. The topic(s) was/were CZADOF: Confucious Zombie Apocalypse Dance Off Fraction. To sum up, people have fun when doing good, which happens a lot when there's a zombie apocalypse, and enjoy themselves when embarrassing themselves with others. Clint Hocking attacked game review inflation, John Sharp reminded everyone that video games are nothing truly new given the history of games and play, and Eric Zimmerman presented an impromptu game questioning fun. One of my takeaways on Zimmerman's talk: impromptu games + a requirement to cooperate = willingness to open up with strangers.
The Beauty of Destruction was an interesting talk on some pitfalls and lesser known facts about C++ destructors. I found it enjoyable, but would have had a more rewarding experience if I was currently using C++ (obviously). Still, nothing like someone forcing you to question how your memory is managed!
Experimental Gameplay Sessions made me realize I sincerely need to stop criticizing current game mechanics and start prototyping my own. Big motivator, as I now have a goal to present something of my own next year.
State-Based Scipting in Uncharted 2, had a few gems. I was surprised to hear a decorator pattern was used instead of inheritance, although given the cost on the stack, function lookups, and the purpose of the pattern, I suppose it makes sense. Also nice to hear about the message passage system for "threading" events across multiple objects, where dependencies might occur. Really wish I could mod their games, if just to see how Lisp fits in.
And that was my quick explanation of what sessions I attended and thought were notable at this year's GDC. Unfortunately, I missed quite of few very interesting talks due to conflicts with other sessions (such as On the War Path: Tactical AI in Dawn of War 2) and had to order the recorded sessions on DVD.
Clint Hocking's Fault Tolerance: From Intentionality to Improvisation showed a new flow to have in games, one in which designers stop punishing the player. This flow results from the user creating a plan of action, and then acting upon it over short periods of time, from one to the other. Most games break this flow by forcing intentional gameplay - the player dies and then goes back to some checkpoint. Improvisation suggests the user reflects upon what happen, how it changed the gameworld, etc (creating a new plan), and then acting upon it. While Clint suggested Bioshock accomplished this, I disagree in that the transitions could be smoother.
From CS to L4D: Creating Replayable Coop Experiences was interesting, well, for creating replayable coop experiences. This was likely a full sessions since it's a Valve design session, and rightfully so. The core idea behind the talk was simply force cooperation by punishing those who refuse to work as a team (using mechanics, not some force field, etc), while also creating randomness to break down the group on occasion. Fairly obvious, but I suppose the limited number of good co-op games establish how non-trivial this is (that, or companies are too lazy to change the status quo...).
I recall being disappointed with The Tech Behind the Tools of Insomniac Games, but in retrospective, hearing them discuss how their build system is pretty interesting for someone who has never worked in such large environments.
The GDC Microtalks had the highest idea/time value (not surprising since 10 talks in 1 hour). Jane McGonical's talk was, as always, inspiring and gave me some game design concepts. The topic(s) was/were CZADOF: Confucious Zombie Apocalypse Dance Off Fraction. To sum up, people have fun when doing good, which happens a lot when there's a zombie apocalypse, and enjoy themselves when embarrassing themselves with others. Clint Hocking attacked game review inflation, John Sharp reminded everyone that video games are nothing truly new given the history of games and play, and Eric Zimmerman presented an impromptu game questioning fun. One of my takeaways on Zimmerman's talk: impromptu games + a requirement to cooperate = willingness to open up with strangers.
The Beauty of Destruction was an interesting talk on some pitfalls and lesser known facts about C++ destructors. I found it enjoyable, but would have had a more rewarding experience if I was currently using C++ (obviously). Still, nothing like someone forcing you to question how your memory is managed!
Experimental Gameplay Sessions made me realize I sincerely need to stop criticizing current game mechanics and start prototyping my own. Big motivator, as I now have a goal to present something of my own next year.
State-Based Scipting in Uncharted 2, had a few gems. I was surprised to hear a decorator pattern was used instead of inheritance, although given the cost on the stack, function lookups, and the purpose of the pattern, I suppose it makes sense. Also nice to hear about the message passage system for "threading" events across multiple objects, where dependencies might occur. Really wish I could mod their games, if just to see how Lisp fits in.
And that was my quick explanation of what sessions I attended and thought were notable at this year's GDC. Unfortunately, I missed quite of few very interesting talks due to conflicts with other sessions (such as On the War Path: Tactical AI in Dawn of War 2) and had to order the recorded sessions on DVD.
3.29.2009
GDC Reflections
Upon reflection, it seems like this may have been the most productive GDC for me since I started attending several years ago. Ironically, up until Thursday I was quite confident that attending was a dumb idea. The cause for both the success and the doubt is the same: I already have a job!
Up until this year I have attended every GDC with the hope of scoring an internship or a full-time job. As a result, I spent too much time exploring the job fair (whether skipping talks or running in between sessions). Although I do recognize that I've made some good connections while exploring, I think the calmness and focus that resulted from removing the rushing and nervousness truly let me absorb more, both in the sessions and while just chatting with people.
On a similar note, I've truly stopped giving a damn about swag and didn't bother looking for any while scoping out the expo. Instead I checked out some amazing games by the IGF booth, and also had some interesting conversations regarding some tools (although the OnLive guy had me really questioning the service).
Another cause for this year being a success is just the experience I've gained since last year, primarily from work on Inversionand at Amazon. I'm sure the host of books I've read since then have helped as well.
I sort of surprised myself by attending so many design talks this year. While at first I felt disappointed in myself for not focusing on programming, a friend of mine got it right when pointing out those talks are generally worthless if there is no immediate application. Nevertheless, Star Ocean 4: Flexible Shader Management and Post-Processing was very impressive, even though it was the last session on a Friday (after everyone is completely exhausted), and also fairly over my head.
The focus on game design certainly had an interesting consequence though. Now, more than ever, I feel inspired to just start doing. I plan on blogging more, networking more, and really start talking to other developers and gamers. But most importantly, I came away with a few game ideas that I plan to start on development before the week is done. My big takeaway this year? To stop worrying if I can get a job somewhere working on games I criticize for failing as art; instead start making games I want to make NOW.
Up until this year I have attended every GDC with the hope of scoring an internship or a full-time job. As a result, I spent too much time exploring the job fair (whether skipping talks or running in between sessions). Although I do recognize that I've made some good connections while exploring, I think the calmness and focus that resulted from removing the rushing and nervousness truly let me absorb more, both in the sessions and while just chatting with people.
On a similar note, I've truly stopped giving a damn about swag and didn't bother looking for any while scoping out the expo. Instead I checked out some amazing games by the IGF booth, and also had some interesting conversations regarding some tools (although the OnLive guy had me really questioning the service).
Another cause for this year being a success is just the experience I've gained since last year, primarily from work on Inversionand at Amazon. I'm sure the host of books I've read since then have helped as well.
I sort of surprised myself by attending so many design talks this year. While at first I felt disappointed in myself for not focusing on programming, a friend of mine got it right when pointing out those talks are generally worthless if there is no immediate application. Nevertheless, Star Ocean 4: Flexible Shader Management and Post-Processing was very impressive, even though it was the last session on a Friday (after everyone is completely exhausted), and also fairly over my head.
The focus on game design certainly had an interesting consequence though. Now, more than ever, I feel inspired to just start doing. I plan on blogging more, networking more, and really start talking to other developers and gamers. But most importantly, I came away with a few game ideas that I plan to start on development before the week is done. My big takeaway this year? To stop worrying if I can get a job somewhere working on games I criticize for failing as art; instead start making games I want to make NOW.
3.17.2009
Moving the rss feed to feedburner.
Just a heads up that I'll be tinkering around with the blog this Thursday and will move it to my new domain, tombennett.me. As such, expect to find the blog on http://blog.tombennett.me. If you subscribe via rss, I highly recommend switching to my feedburner feed.
Of course I'm sure any readers would notice a lack of updates. You might want to check out my twitter account, as I update that much more frequently.
Of course I'm sure any readers would notice a lack of updates. You might want to check out my twitter account, as I update that much more frequently.
2.28.2009
Qwest altering DNS settings
Late last month I decided to use OpenDNS. Obviously, this should mean just updating the DNS servers on my router, right? Modem? Hmm, didn't work either. Today I finally got around to investigating. Apparently Qwest (my ISP) doesn't care what your DNS settings are. It was only after paying attention to their "page not found" page, ripe with yahoo search results (additional revenue anyone?) that I noticed this was a Qwest.Help service which I could "opt out" of. Well, I never opted in, but it's nice to see that you want to take complete control over my DNS options thanks very much. I opted out, and about 10 minutes later I'm finally using OpenDNS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
