In game design, what distinguishes a good designer from a great designer is not creativity. In fact, creativity is a prerequisite for the gig in the first place. If one is not creative, they should not be in the line.
The distinguishing factors are in fact influence and experience. A veteran and a newbie may well come up with the exact same creative idea and flesh out every spec that the idea needs in order to get implemented. Yet more often than not, the veteran's idea will come out closer to the original vision than the newbie's. This is where influence and experience come in.
As the adage goes, a designer's only as good as her relationship with the team. If the team hates the designer, they will be quite well incentivized to not implement exactly what the designer wants. It may not be an unprofessional attempt to sabotage the project since they would suffer for it as well, but it would come in the form of dislike for the designer bleeding into dislike for the idea in general. Alternatively, the sheer reputation of a designer might hold some sway, but that will only go so far if everything else about them is downright repulsive. No influence, no implementation. 'nuff said.
Then comes the experience. Even if the designer's absolutely influential, it does not mean that the team will be able to get the ideas out at first pass. Misimplementation is just one possible problem, but easily spotted. If it doesn't match, it's wrong. The other is having an inferior foundation, which is by far a more insidious issue. It is very easy to charge towards milestones while paying little heed to the pipeline and tools used for future iterations. Eventually, the inferior foundation will make itself known, as the even slightly increased delay between iterations will add up over time. It must be noted that few things are ever done right on the first pass, and every additional delay in each iteration will be multiplied by the dozens if not hundreds or thousands of iterations before a feature is finally shipped.
Considering this, it should be clear that while talent will be what distinguishes equally experienced and influential designers, it plays a much smaller role than what many beginner handbooks seem to be pushing. Not everyone can be exquisitely talented, but anyone who pays attention to what is going on can become somewhat more influential and certainly more experienced.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The Nature Of Guilt
Guilt is only possible when the nature of the guilt-inducing act can be comprehended. By definition, someone who does not know that she did wrong is quite unlikely to feel guilty about the wrongdoing. That much is common sense.
However, it is also possible for highly guilt-inducing acts to move to a scale that defies comprehension. The result is the same: people who would feel guilty about a lesser act may well feel minimal guilt at the far greater act that is beyond their comprehension.
Take for example the guilt of murder. Most normal people would probably feel quite guilty over murdering someone. When it turns to mass murder, however, it quickly goes beyond human comprehension. It seems quite unlikely that getting say...10 million people killed is going to weigh on the conscience 10 million times stronger than a single murder would. It is simply beyond what can be comprehended. In fact, it may be possible that the number itself becomes so immense that guilt is practically diluted to nothingness. Where massive numbers of people get slaughtered, it becomes ever easier to shirk the responsibility and project it on others.
An intentional killing is a murder. A billion intentional killings is a statistical reduction.
However, it is also possible for highly guilt-inducing acts to move to a scale that defies comprehension. The result is the same: people who would feel guilty about a lesser act may well feel minimal guilt at the far greater act that is beyond their comprehension.
Take for example the guilt of murder. Most normal people would probably feel quite guilty over murdering someone. When it turns to mass murder, however, it quickly goes beyond human comprehension. It seems quite unlikely that getting say...10 million people killed is going to weigh on the conscience 10 million times stronger than a single murder would. It is simply beyond what can be comprehended. In fact, it may be possible that the number itself becomes so immense that guilt is practically diluted to nothingness. Where massive numbers of people get slaughtered, it becomes ever easier to shirk the responsibility and project it on others.
An intentional killing is a murder. A billion intentional killings is a statistical reduction.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Scaling Corruption
Corruption simply does not scale terribly well. If power corrupts, I'd rather have absolute power. It's not as if I'm gona be pure either way. And I certainly would not approve of being absolutely powerless.
Of course, corruption itself is not quite so simplistic. It is often subtle, and not something that people would likely notice at first. Just a selfish act here, a little betrayal there...nothing major. Yet later on, as one becomes accustomed to committing little corrupt acts, the ramifications of corruption become less grating on the psyche. Guilt falls away, and it becomes easier to go down that slippery slope. What's it to me if I did one more teeny corrupt act...
Ultimately, the corruption switches from being unintentional to possibly intentional. The acts are now clearly beneficial, though possibly at the expense of others. Benefit becomes an end in itself. Yet it does seem like the marginal guilt reduces as one proceeds down the path of corruption. The first act could've required quite some deliberation, but as one becomes sufficiently corrupted, previously unthinkable acts could become practically second nature.
Of course, corruption itself is not quite so simplistic. It is often subtle, and not something that people would likely notice at first. Just a selfish act here, a little betrayal there...nothing major. Yet later on, as one becomes accustomed to committing little corrupt acts, the ramifications of corruption become less grating on the psyche. Guilt falls away, and it becomes easier to go down that slippery slope. What's it to me if I did one more teeny corrupt act...
Ultimately, the corruption switches from being unintentional to possibly intentional. The acts are now clearly beneficial, though possibly at the expense of others. Benefit becomes an end in itself. Yet it does seem like the marginal guilt reduces as one proceeds down the path of corruption. The first act could've required quite some deliberation, but as one becomes sufficiently corrupted, previously unthinkable acts could become practically second nature.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Acceptance Of The Disabled
It does seem, sometimes, that people with handicaps are better accepted. Of course, it may well be an illusory acceptance, borne of pity and the strength of social taboos. Specifically, the taboo against bullying the weak...or disabled.
On second thought, perhaps a more accurate description of the state of the disabled people would be a state of tolerance rather than acceptance, since they are not so much accepted as they are tolerated. Life certainly isn't plain sailing.
Yet, it is precisely because of these adversities that the disabled are given special leeways that are just not granted to those perceived as normal. It seems that people are unwilling to provide for the special needs of unique individuals unless there's a really compelling reason to do so. Strangely enough, those special treatments are often readily granted to children and animals. Double standards abound.
On second thought, perhaps a more accurate description of the state of the disabled people would be a state of tolerance rather than acceptance, since they are not so much accepted as they are tolerated. Life certainly isn't plain sailing.
Yet, it is precisely because of these adversities that the disabled are given special leeways that are just not granted to those perceived as normal. It seems that people are unwilling to provide for the special needs of unique individuals unless there's a really compelling reason to do so. Strangely enough, those special treatments are often readily granted to children and animals. Double standards abound.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Vampirism Sucks
Pun intended. It is strange how people can develop a fascination with vampiric creatures. If one considers the practical implications of vampirism, it really does not seem terribly appealing at all. Of course, one caveat will be that I do not regard Twilight-style vampires as vampires at all. They're really more like a bizarre variety of blood drinking Superman. 'nuff said.
Anyway yes, the usual perks should be considered. Superhuman strength, senses, speed, etc etc. Yes we get it, they're superpowered. And immortal...sorta. Cool beans, eh? But then we gota consider the disadvantages as well. Given the fatal allergy to sunlight, it really is no fun to be out at least half of any given day. Perhaps more, if one's in a temperate region. Then there's the inability to effectively enjoy any mortal food. You'd imagine that tasting blood (however tasty, it's effectively got one flavor) for an eternity would not be very nice at all. Not to mention one doesn't actually have a death to look forward to: you're gona have to get off'ed or off yourself at some point if you're sick of existence.
Quite a raw deal, imo. Of course, there is a common mythical alternative. Which is the werewolf. A lot sweeter, seeing as they're all nice and furry and cuddly, can eat regular food and live pretty much a darned long time. Not to mention they're of the superpowered variety, too. Of course there's the same issue of frenzying from time to time, and being quite allergic to silver. It's still a comparatively minor tradeoff.
Given the comparison, I do wonder why people seem to favor vampires over werewolves. It does not compute. Maybe it's to do with the scruffy looking presentation of stereotypical werewolves in comparison to the Victorian refinement of vampires. Come on, wolvies, beef up the PR already. Geez.
Anyway yes, the usual perks should be considered. Superhuman strength, senses, speed, etc etc. Yes we get it, they're superpowered. And immortal...sorta. Cool beans, eh? But then we gota consider the disadvantages as well. Given the fatal allergy to sunlight, it really is no fun to be out at least half of any given day. Perhaps more, if one's in a temperate region. Then there's the inability to effectively enjoy any mortal food. You'd imagine that tasting blood (however tasty, it's effectively got one flavor) for an eternity would not be very nice at all. Not to mention one doesn't actually have a death to look forward to: you're gona have to get off'ed or off yourself at some point if you're sick of existence.
Quite a raw deal, imo. Of course, there is a common mythical alternative. Which is the werewolf. A lot sweeter, seeing as they're all nice and furry and cuddly, can eat regular food and live pretty much a darned long time. Not to mention they're of the superpowered variety, too. Of course there's the same issue of frenzying from time to time, and being quite allergic to silver. It's still a comparatively minor tradeoff.
Given the comparison, I do wonder why people seem to favor vampires over werewolves. It does not compute. Maybe it's to do with the scruffy looking presentation of stereotypical werewolves in comparison to the Victorian refinement of vampires. Come on, wolvies, beef up the PR already. Geez.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Collapse Of Law
Vigilantism exists whenever rule of law is perceived as being inadequate in some way. Perhaps it is an underfunded and/or corrupt police force, or laws that are not agreeable to some people. Simply put, the activities exist for very much the same reason black markets do: to fill a void left by the authorities.
One thing that does get me thinking is exactly when does a vigilante (if ever) have the right to do something righteous despite the righteous act being outlawed due to omission or intention. Taking the example of Batman (again), the Gotham City law has a blind spot whereby certain criminally insane people are not being put to death despite repeatedly escaping and causing the deaths of innocent people. Would it ever be right for Batman to kill them?
Of course, we have the popular perception consideration that takes into account the fact that vigilantes already operate outside the law and are somewhat feared by the people. Vigilantes starting to kill would turn public perception against them. Yet this neglects the point that there are worse things than vigilantes killing small numbers of murderous individuals as opposed to the criminally insane killing large numbers of innocents. Would people choose the lesser evil, or would they continue to support their legal system riddled with loopholes?
One thing that does get me thinking is exactly when does a vigilante (if ever) have the right to do something righteous despite the righteous act being outlawed due to omission or intention. Taking the example of Batman (again), the Gotham City law has a blind spot whereby certain criminally insane people are not being put to death despite repeatedly escaping and causing the deaths of innocent people. Would it ever be right for Batman to kill them?
Of course, we have the popular perception consideration that takes into account the fact that vigilantes already operate outside the law and are somewhat feared by the people. Vigilantes starting to kill would turn public perception against them. Yet this neglects the point that there are worse things than vigilantes killing small numbers of murderous individuals as opposed to the criminally insane killing large numbers of innocents. Would people choose the lesser evil, or would they continue to support their legal system riddled with loopholes?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Batman's Dilemma
Batman seems on the surface to be exceedingly foolish, perpetually incarcerating homicidal maniacs who invariably go free and proceed to wreak havoc on yet more innocents. Yet, there is the claim that were he to simply kill them, he would be no better for in willingly taking their lives he simply becomes a murdere: very much like one of them.
The utilitarian argument of killing one to serve the needs of many does seem to provide a solution, albeit one that is somewhat disturbing in its implications. Genocide comes to mind. Despite this, there is a niggling doubt about Batman's actions, since his solution does not seem terribly good either.
This may be explained by his motivations, which are actually rather selfish. It does appear to be a case of wanting to push the guilt of killing over to the maniacs, whom he in turn repeatedly punishes. He clearly decided that indirectly killing others through inaction is not criminal in any way, even though he already knew from past experience that incarcerating them would only lead to the deaths of more innocents.
In Batman's case, it would actually be a clear cut case of people not worth saving. It is a case of possibly saving 1 person in exchange for the assured death of 100. It is no longer about saving 1 person, but sacrificing 100 to possibly save 1. In real life, such decisions are of course considerably harder to make, seeing as how the average person is generally not quite as predictable.
The utilitarian argument of killing one to serve the needs of many does seem to provide a solution, albeit one that is somewhat disturbing in its implications. Genocide comes to mind. Despite this, there is a niggling doubt about Batman's actions, since his solution does not seem terribly good either.
This may be explained by his motivations, which are actually rather selfish. It does appear to be a case of wanting to push the guilt of killing over to the maniacs, whom he in turn repeatedly punishes. He clearly decided that indirectly killing others through inaction is not criminal in any way, even though he already knew from past experience that incarcerating them would only lead to the deaths of more innocents.
In Batman's case, it would actually be a clear cut case of people not worth saving. It is a case of possibly saving 1 person in exchange for the assured death of 100. It is no longer about saving 1 person, but sacrificing 100 to possibly save 1. In real life, such decisions are of course considerably harder to make, seeing as how the average person is generally not quite as predictable.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
MC Sandwich
I am writing this as a documentation of my use of multicoated optics to enhance the performance of vintage camera lenses. A common problem old lenses face is flare and other aberrations resulting from the limited capabilities of primitive coatings. Hypothetically, introducing multicoated optics in the front and rear of the optical path would improve image quality somewhat. The extent of the effect is unknown, and may vary from lens to lens.
I tested this theory on a cheap Makinon 400mm f6.3 optic by placing a well coated Hoya HD filter in front, and using the Olympus EC14 teleconverter behind it. Before using the MC optics, flare was objectionable and the image appeared to be soft due to extensive optical aberrations. After adding on the optics, the image quality was greatly improved and the lens combo could render passable results.
Trying again on the Olympus 300mm f4.5 (a non-MC optic), there was a small but noticeable amount of CA and subtle flare in the images when shot wide open. After the introduction of MC optics, CA and flare completely disappeared. This was unexpected. Of course, being no expert in optical design, I'd expect there are explanations for how/why this happens; besides the obvious ability of MC optical glass to resist flare and the teleconverter's ability to collimate light.
It is expected that similar combinations may be used on other legacy optics to similar effect, and may provide a way to rejuvenate old lenses. However, further experimentation is necessary before it can be established exactly which optics respond best to the treatment. Initial findings suggest that a relatively fast lens is required in order to maintain a usable level of light transmittance for general photography.
I tested this theory on a cheap Makinon 400mm f6.3 optic by placing a well coated Hoya HD filter in front, and using the Olympus EC14 teleconverter behind it. Before using the MC optics, flare was objectionable and the image appeared to be soft due to extensive optical aberrations. After adding on the optics, the image quality was greatly improved and the lens combo could render passable results.
Trying again on the Olympus 300mm f4.5 (a non-MC optic), there was a small but noticeable amount of CA and subtle flare in the images when shot wide open. After the introduction of MC optics, CA and flare completely disappeared. This was unexpected. Of course, being no expert in optical design, I'd expect there are explanations for how/why this happens; besides the obvious ability of MC optical glass to resist flare and the teleconverter's ability to collimate light.
It is expected that similar combinations may be used on other legacy optics to similar effect, and may provide a way to rejuvenate old lenses. However, further experimentation is necessary before it can be established exactly which optics respond best to the treatment. Initial findings suggest that a relatively fast lens is required in order to maintain a usable level of light transmittance for general photography.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Hitting The Swamps
Trudging around on a mangrove boardwalk doesn't sound like something most people would like to do on any particular day, especially not on Good Friday. Well...that's precisely what I did.
Today was a Good Friday indeed, seeing as how many wonders we managed to behold during the short excursion. It was a largely unplanned trip, so we arrived at the mangrove just as the tide was coming in. Not only did we get to briefly witness the mangrove as it usually was at low tide, we got to see the water trickling then rushing into the bog. We even got to see the fruit of the nipah palm for real. At this point, the crabs crawling about suddenly decided to climb some trees, with some crabs reaching pretty much head height. It's probably not just for forage, but also to avoid the deadly monitor lizards.
Then there were the birds, and the occasional archer fish. The egret/heron family birds were present, as were oodles of kingfishers. As the trip drew to a close, I noticed a large bird landing to peck at the fruit hanging from a palm tree. It turns out the bird was a pied hornbill and its mate. Truly rarities, and awesome to behold. What better way could there be to spend a Good Friday, than to appreciate the wonder of the stinking bog.
Today was a Good Friday indeed, seeing as how many wonders we managed to behold during the short excursion. It was a largely unplanned trip, so we arrived at the mangrove just as the tide was coming in. Not only did we get to briefly witness the mangrove as it usually was at low tide, we got to see the water trickling then rushing into the bog. We even got to see the fruit of the nipah palm for real. At this point, the crabs crawling about suddenly decided to climb some trees, with some crabs reaching pretty much head height. It's probably not just for forage, but also to avoid the deadly monitor lizards.
Then there were the birds, and the occasional archer fish. The egret/heron family birds were present, as were oodles of kingfishers. As the trip drew to a close, I noticed a large bird landing to peck at the fruit hanging from a palm tree. It turns out the bird was a pied hornbill and its mate. Truly rarities, and awesome to behold. What better way could there be to spend a Good Friday, than to appreciate the wonder of the stinking bog.
Limits Of Randomness
Purely random item spawns is a method often used in game design to provide a variety of loot for players. This is intended to let players experience a sense of discovery and anticipation every time they play a level. It is like Christmas all over again.
Unfortunately, random loot has its limitations. Even when loot is balanced towards player levels and game difficulty, sometimes the desired loot simply will not drop. For example, a swordsman may wind up with loads of awesome mage staves while finding lousy to mediocre swordsman equipment. This may be tenable in games where it is intended for players to trade with one another for better loot, but it is plain irritating in single player experiences.
Take for example Dawn of War 2. Loot is randomized so my Devastator squad may never get the high end heavy bolters or their usable equivalents in Terminator armor. A possible solution to this would be to subtly weight loot drops according to fielded troops. For example, having a Devastator squad on the field will automatically grant me a +3% chance of getting Devastator drops. This value may need to be modified in order to make the drops still feel random, but will result in sufficiently high good drops to keep the players happy.
On a separate note, loot must be available for looting. DUH! I am still peeved about levels ending immediately after killing the boss creature, often preventing me from picking up that nice looking wargear that was just dropped. Talk about waste of effort. If loot cannot be automatically retrieved at the end of missions due to balance issues, the least they could do is provide a small window period for players to retrieve the items...
Unfortunately, random loot has its limitations. Even when loot is balanced towards player levels and game difficulty, sometimes the desired loot simply will not drop. For example, a swordsman may wind up with loads of awesome mage staves while finding lousy to mediocre swordsman equipment. This may be tenable in games where it is intended for players to trade with one another for better loot, but it is plain irritating in single player experiences.
Take for example Dawn of War 2. Loot is randomized so my Devastator squad may never get the high end heavy bolters or their usable equivalents in Terminator armor. A possible solution to this would be to subtly weight loot drops according to fielded troops. For example, having a Devastator squad on the field will automatically grant me a +3% chance of getting Devastator drops. This value may need to be modified in order to make the drops still feel random, but will result in sufficiently high good drops to keep the players happy.
On a separate note, loot must be available for looting. DUH! I am still peeved about levels ending immediately after killing the boss creature, often preventing me from picking up that nice looking wargear that was just dropped. Talk about waste of effort. If loot cannot be automatically retrieved at the end of missions due to balance issues, the least they could do is provide a small window period for players to retrieve the items...