What (if anything) is wrong with the gaming industry?

@TheMeInTeam

As we're back to you offering one-word answers in which you deny the consequences of the words you post, this one will likely be my last on this tangent. There's only so many times I can repeat myself, and as you're only entertaining this for the sake of it, I'm sure you'll be relieved :p
Devs are people, which I pointed out earlier. Doesn't need specific support if it holds for humans in general.
I just wanted to highlight this fantastic piece of backwards reasoning, based on your own standard that people can't assume anything about a written text. You said "developer", you did not say "human". There is no benefit in specifying developer unless you didn't mean to specify developer, and I have a hard time thinking you'd use a word without care. I cannot assume, naturally, which leads me to believe your choice of "developer" in-context, and not humans, which is a word you did not, in fact, say, until you later attempted to defend yourself in circles for a couple of pages.

Which leaves us with your arguing for the sake of arguing, which proves the entire derail, really.

I do wish I didn't have to wander around these tedious overworded pieces of "verbiage" as you claim them to be, but you're the one enforcing this standard on posts you decide to enjoy arguing with. Otherwise you avoid actually engaging with the argument and either just give "no u" (or an offensive equivalent) or attempt to tie people in semantic knots. Tedious all round, and yup, I'm well aware of my contribution in continuing the derail. I just had hope it'd turn out differently.

It's a shame, I really expected a better level of conversation given your positions on technical aspects such as UX, UI, AI and so on. Instead you opted for the personal angle (in support of a defense of a lack of diversity in video games), and then personally absolved yourself (very charitably!) of any blame for words that you chose to use.

I'd normally offer a PM, but you haven't responded to such in the past. It's probably a tad uncharitable of me, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that that'd defeat the point of arguing (publicly) just because you like the argument. Any genuine attempt at resolving any lines of debate died when you said that, really, but I tried regardless.
 
Last edited:
I cannot assume, naturally, which leads me to believe your choice of "developer" in-context

"I cannot assume, so naturally I will assume in the same sentence".

until you later attempted to defend yourself in circles for a couple of pages.

I defended my point adequately when I pointed out that developers were humans, then cited literature that demonstrates that proclivity is a real thing in humans. No circles from there, just you not wanting to accept words at face value for whatever reason.

As we're back to you offering one-word answers in which you deny the consequences of the words you post, I think I'm out here. I just wanted to highlight this fantastic piece of backwards reasoning

You can call anything "backwards reasoning", but it doesn't make it true. If we can assert "humans are x", we can infer "developers are x", unless you refute that developers = humans. Backwards reasoning would be to claim that humans are y because developers are y. This is because "developers" are a categorization within the larger category of "human", not the other way around.

based on your own standard that people can't assume anything about a written text.

Assertions about general populations vs interpreting a single data point can and should have different standards.

There is no benefit in specifying developer unless you didn't mean to specify developer, and I have a hard time thinking you'd use a word without care.

Well, I did use the word w/o care. In the context of the thread it was what first came to mind. That's the reality. If you don't like it too bad, or go on inferring some other pretend intention if that floats your boat.

Which leaves us with your arguing for the sake of arguing, which proves the entire derail, really.

This started because you challenged my post on shaky grounds/making undue inferences in the first place. I participated in the derail of course, but it's strange to start talking about how this is a tangent as a reaction to my arguing for the sake of it. You've initiated and continued doing the same thing.

I do wish I didn't have to wander around these tedious overworded pieces of "verbiage" as you decry them to be, but you're the one enforcing this standard on posts you decide to enjoy arguing with. Otherwise you avoid actually engaging with the argument

or attempt to tie people in semantic knots. Either way, tedious all round.

Ironic.

It's a shame, I really expected a better level of conversation given your positions on UX, UI, AI and so on. Instead you opted for the personal angle

Don't @ me with this garbage.

The only person who has brought anything personal into discussions is you, consistently. You have repeatedly fabricated motivations, fabricated intentions, and talked about irrelevant things wrt character rather than topic, occasionally resorting to straight up ad hominem. That's your fallacious nonsense, not mine (including misusing the concept of fallacy fallacy). Trying to pin a "personal angle" on me in such a context is a comical degree of hypocrisy...and also inaccurate.

You are the only person who's tried to bring any personal aspect into discussions here. It's junk, not conducive to any topical discussion, and at best a distraction. The irony of claiming someone else is doing it is rich, but aside from that it has no value.

Anyway, enough of that.

absolving yourself (very charitably!) of any blame for words that you choose to you. Until the next time.

There's no reason to absolve myself of "blame" because there's nothing to "blame". You can't even refute the statement's factual accuracy, instead resorting to a wrong-usage of "backwards reasoning" to reject it out of hand. That's fine and all, but doing this and then claiming the other person is "avoiding engaging" is the kind of reach that defies reality. Don't go pulling muscles with that.
 
Don't @ me with this garbage.
You called developers lazy. You want to pretend that's not a perjorative, that's fine. You want to defend yourself by using the genius-level reasoning that you did so carelessly, also fine. But don't get on your high horse when I said had decent expectations for a discussion based on a positive association (with you! In the past!) and you turn it into a rant about how I'm posting garbage. I meant what I said about those hopes.

If you don't care, that's also fine, but at least pretend the people you're talking with are genuine. I did right up until you literally admitted you were arguing for the sake of it.
 
Wouldn't game developers, like so many other computer programmers, hold to the view that efficiency is just an advanced for of laziness and thus laziness (when properly employed) is a very good thing?
 
If you don't care, that's also fine, but at least pretend the people you're talking with are genuine.

I usually consider posting to be genuine at face value, unless I'm given a reason to believe otherwise.

Arguing with me for the sake of arguing (which started at post #231) and then calling me out because I only engaged with that for the sake of argument is bizarre. Claiming this was done with a pretense of being genuine even more so!

Wouldn't game developers, like so many other computer programmers, hold to the view that efficiency is just an advanced for of laziness and thus laziness (when properly employed) is a very good thing?

I'd guess some would and some wouldn't. While I picked up on this usage for laziness in economics coursework, the meaning was the same as the context you're using.
 
Wouldn't game developers, like so many other computer programmers, hold to the view that efficiency is just an advanced for of laziness and thus laziness (when properly employed) is a very good thing?
"laziness" is the quality of being unwilling to work. You can't append a caveat of "properly employed" because it breaks the definition. Developers don't integrate things like automation and test suites because they're lazy; they do it because they want to be doing other things with that time. Software development (and games even moreso) is a very competitive business. There's no room for laziness in any decent development team, especially when you make the inevitable jump from niche market to corporate acquisition.

Games development is even more punishing. Turnover is incredibly high, wages are lower than in software on average, and it's sold on the glamour and passion of making games. There's no room for "opting" to not make specific character sets because of an unwillingness to do any of the relevant work. Games development is a business; their products have budgets. Therefore it's also not laziness to cut something if it's not a good fit for the team on the budget they have.

It's not even the puzzling "work smart" interpretation of laziness, because they're not even using the assets smartly. They're just not doing them at all. It's an intentional choice, in the event it happens at all. From then on, all we can do is speculate at the reasoning (when its not stated outright).
 
I agree, in most cases that came in to my head it’s more of a case of cost savings and generally poor understanding of the audience, game design, prioritization, direction and market standards that ruins some games, not laziness of the developing team. Lets not forget that “world creation”, even though technical, is an art. Sometimes you mix the ingredients and it just doesn’t work, doesn’t click. Because you missed something. Sometimes it works flawlessly and the dev’s are scratching their heads - “how did we do that”?!? In time someone surely deconstructs the game picture into periodic table of elements and points out to the devs (and everyone else) what went right there. But there is no guarantee that this knowledge will serve as a foundation for the next big hit. The gamer audience is in constant evolution. Try catching up with that!
 

Consider the content in Daggerfall Unity vs the content in CRPGs from modern publishers.

 
Last edited:
Top Bottom