Dani Berry/Dan Bunten passed away...
Jeff Vitous
Thierry Nguyen wrote in message <35a36da2...@news.mindspring.com>...
>Hmm, I was catching up on my news over the weekend, and caught the
>news that she passed away on the morning of July 3rd. Real old-school
>gamers (aka before my generation) who loved M.U.L.E. will recognize
>her as the designer of that, and many other games that experimented
>with multiplayer.
>
>The link below is where I read about this. This isn't just a site
>plug, because as of 5:45 pm PST, Gamespot was the only site to have
>this news. There's no mention of this on OGR, PCG Wire, Gamecenter,
>etc. Otherwise I woulda pointed to those sites also.
>
>http://headline.gamespot.com/news/98_07/06_berry/index.html
>
>Just thought some gamers out there might appreciate the heads-up.
>
>
>Thierry Nguyen
>Evil Media Person
>"This writing business, pencils and whatnot. Over-rated if you ask me."
>-Eeyore
Thanks for letting us know. I still remember playing Command HQ to death on
my first computer...a HP Vectra 8086. Dani was truly a legend in a field
that thus far has produced few of note...she will be missed.
Jeff Vitous
jvi...@spamthis.wwa.com
Jimbo Barber
I hate to show my ignorance, but what does "Dani Berry, nee Dan Bunten"
(quote from the article) mean? She is referred to as "Dani Berry" mostly,
so how does the name "Dan Bunten" fit in?
Thanks...
Alan Dunkin
Jimbo Barber wrote:
> I hate to show my ignorance, but what does "Dani Berry, nee Dan Bunten"
> (quote from the article) mean? She is referred to as "Dani Berry" mostly,
> so how does the name "Dan Bunten" fit in?
Dan Bunten had an, um, operation.
--- Alan Dunkin, GameSpot
Home Away From Home - http://www.utdallas.edu/~adunkin
Thierry Nguyen
Kevin McGuire
Jeff Vitous (jvi...@wwa.com) wrote:
: Thanks for letting us know. I still remember playing Command HQ to death on
: my first computer...a HP Vectra 8086. Dani was truly a legend in a field
: that thus far has produced few of note...she will be missed.
The amazingly fun time my friends and I had playing M.U.L.E. on the C64
was a tremendous gift from Dani Berry. Would that any of us could leave
such a legacy.
--
Kevin McGuire
University of Pennsylvania
#Remove the 2 "moo" to reply#
Dave Rhodes
>I hate to show my ignorance, but what does "Dani Berry, nee Dan Bunten"
>(quote from the article) mean? She is referred to as "Dani Berry" mostly,
>so how does the name "Dan Bunten" fit in?
>
>Thanks...
>
She (Dani Berry) used to be a he named Dan Bunten. A great game
designer from the 1980's responsible for such classics as M.U.L.E.,
Seven Cities of Gold, Command HQ, and Choplifter.
jc...@uclink.berkeley.edu
> She (Dani Berry) used to be a he named Dan Bunten. A great game
> designer from the 1980's responsible for such classics as M.U.L.E.,
> Seven Cities of Gold, Command HQ, and Choplifter.
I've played and enjoyed all those titles except M.U.L.E. and they were indeed
fun games.
GameSpot also reported that she created Modem Wars, one of my favorite real
time strategy/tactical game. I can't help but feel bad that Dani Berry died
and that I didn't know who the creator was until the time of her death.
I'm really glad that the G.D.C. awarded her with a life time achievement
award. She really deserved it.
Joseph Twu
Lamebrain/bort
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Fred Quattrone
released a game in a while. Its sad to hear.
FQ
Jimbo Barber
Alan Dunkin wrote in message <6ns81a$8...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Jimbo Barber wrote:
>
>> I hate to show my ignorance, but what does "Dani Berry, nee Dan Bunten"
>> (quote from the article) mean? She is referred to as "Dani Berry"
mostly,
>> so how does the name "Dan Bunten" fit in?
>
Paul Dugenske
Conference in 1997
---------------------
paul.d...@888rocketship.com
See that 888 in my address ? Remove it to
reply via email.
Don't forget to call:
Air Power BBS
(847) 395-5140
Paul Dugenske
Quoting Dani Berry:
Imaginary Playmates in Real-time or Why Online Games Suck
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Lecture for the 1997 Computer Game Developers Conference, Copyright
1997,
by Dani Bunten Berry
I started out my career as speaker at this conference by delivering
the
banquet keynote address in 1990. I told everyone that if we want to
reach
the mass market in this industry we're going to have to become part of
the
main stream and stop being such nerds. I recommended that they go
home,
meet their neighbors, get married, have kids and to stop spending all
their
time alone in front of computers. I said something pompous like "Only
when
our products come out of a deep connection with real-life will they
resonate with the mass market". I think that was when I coined the
morbid
quote that "No one on their death bed ever says 'I wish I'd spent more
time
alone with my computer'" to highlight the "people orientation" of the
real
world vs. the "thing orientation" of our business. Not mentioned in my
bio
is the fact that 4 years ago I changed pronouns. I tell you this
partly so
that those of you who "know" don't feel any anxiety about telling or
not
telling those of you who don't since I hate that kind of awkwardness.
But a
sex change also offered me enough humbling experiences to make me less
willing to pontificate about what other people need to do. I switched
instead to just sharing my insights on specific game areas. I've done
round-tables and seminars on various aspects of designing and
developing
games. However, I've loved the big lectures given by my friends Chris
Crawford, Brian Moriarty and a few others that eviscerate our
industry,
cajole us to think differently and galvanize us to try harder. For
myself,
I haven't felt driven enough by my beliefs, sure enough of my
experience
nor confident enough in my ability to climb back into that pulpit
again --
till now.
What kicked me into motion was a conversation with a "marketing
specialist"
at a recent online game conference. He said something innocently
grandiose
about how great it is that the online service he worked for has got
the
full gamut of games to cover all possible demographic groups. In his
view,
as new products come up all he'll have to do is drop it in one of his
genre
slots and connect the dots between who's out there (audience) and the
what
they can play (content). I was dumbstruck. It's true that they had
things
from card games through "Warcraft" to "Doom" that featured different
levels
of intensity and abstraction. However, from my point of view all those
games were holdovers from the pre-online era. I believed we had barely
tapped the virgin territory of a whole new medium. Here was a 20
something
whiz kid telling me it was all over but to stock those cyber-shelves
and
rake in the cash. Once I recognized this "new" point of view of his, I
started seeing it in a lot of other places. Like the lack of desire by
publishers and capitalists to underwrite even small experimental
products.
All they wanted to talk about were the fully fledged, competitively
executed products that looked a lot like what was selling in the PC CD
market. They were more willing to spend a million bucks on a "C&C"
clone
than under $100K on a promising concept for an original product. As
the
self-appointed life-long defender of people-oriented games in this
business
I had to speak up to save this potential new medium from being turned
into
another silicon valley meets Hollywood "sequel-itis" wasteland.
So that's why I'm motivated to preach. But am I qualified? In these
days
where spending six months with an internet service provider is enough
to
proclaim yourself an expert in the online world, it's a good question.
I've
done more original multi-player games than anybody else in the games
business and the one thing we're sure about online games is that they
will
be multi-player. Of the dozen games that I've had published by
Strategic
Simulations, Electronic Arts and Microprose, 10 were multi-player. The
first 7 of them used shared or simultaneous input (depending on the
platform) and shared output. (In other words players were grouped
around a
computer with their own joysticks when possible or passing it when
not).
There were (and still are) numerous possibilities for social
interaction
and interesting play with the shared computer kind of design. However,
there were a number of logistical issues related to getting groups of
people playing games around a single computer (such as, it's not
usually
centrally located and people need to be "invited"). Online games "fix"
these problems while still offering several of the social advantages
of
multi-player games. Thus, as soon as possible I switched to writing
online
games and my last 3 were of the type that each player had their own
machine
connected by modems. (Specifically, they were server-less,
synchronous-state, real-time action-strategy games where all the code
ran
on the client machines). I did the first point-to-point game and the
first
four player network games published by major publishers. The last
several
years I've been a design consultant specializing in multi-player
online
games.
There are my motivations and my qualifications to speak. How about my
confidence to deliver this tirade? On that I'm too stubborn not to
try.
We're going to attempt to uncover why online games suck and what to do
about it. First, I should share the good news about online games. A
lot of
people are having a lot of fun playing the online games they are being
offered. "Quake", "Warcraft", "C&C", "Diablo" and their clones are
doing an
amazing job of convincing people that the age of online multi-player
games
is upon us. A whole sub-industry is being developed to bring more
folks
into that realm and to make money off them. Compared to this time last
year, we now know that tens of thousands of people are willing to sign
up
and pay some amount just to play games online. Although, we still
don't
know the ideal system for financing online play we at least have some
notions about mixing ads and box-office to fund the system.
What I mean in my title, "Imaginary Playmates in Real-time", is that
for
nearly all intents and purposes the current crop of games (and even
the
next crop that I'm aware of) have simply taken standard computer game
genres from the pre-online era and replaced the AI opponents with
humans.
If you're playing one of those games, your interaction with those
humans is
at the same level as it was with the AI ones. What we're experiencing
now
is just the fact that people make better opponents. They will do more
interesting things than any algorithm. Those of us who have been
pushing
multi-player games for years have known this part. It's just that this
is
such a tiny aspect of what having human playmates can mean. People can
make
you feel welcome and accepted. People can teach you and share with
you.
They can touch you emotionally. But in the current online games they
are
nothing but a few pixels on the screen and an occasional stream of
text.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that online games suck in comparison to
what
they can become. So, it appears I was exaggerating in my sub-title "or
Why
Online Games Suck". Guilty as charged. But, I got you here and paying
attention and I promise to give you some suggestions on how we can
create
an online games medium that will make what's happening now look
"sucky" by
comparison.
The Distribution Monster
Let me start by describing some of the institutional and structural
problems of how computer games are currently being designed and built
that
we need to overcome in order to bring this new medium to life. The
biggest
and most threatening monster in our path is the distribution system
that
garners almost 80% of the revenue stream of games for virtually no
value
added. That's pretty harsh isn't it?!
What we have now is a multi-billion dollar computer game business.
Lets
look at where that money moves. Most of the accumulation of wealth
occurs
as a result of the sales and distribution of our designs. Retailers,
who
display our games to their audience, take the lions share of the
revenue
stream - between 50% and 60%. For this they present the edges of boxes
on
shelves under labels they consider descriptive. At this particular
point in
time those labels are thematic more often than not. You'll find our
games
categorized under Science Fiction, Sports, War, etc. Under these
titles you
will find everything mixed together. I've even seen "Command and
Conquer",
"Duke Nukem" and "Myst" under Science Fiction for God's sake! How do
retailers not know that our audience fall into categories by whether
they
like strategy, action or adventure games not whether it deals with the
future? I can't imagine how players find games they are likely to
enjoy
these days.
The next big player in terms of accumulation of wealth in our industry
are
the publisher/distributors. They take 35% to 40% of the pie. For this
they
put our software on CD's, put them in boxes and ship them to
retailers.
This is not to say they don't make a creative contribution. They turn
their
marketing gurus loose to invent the packaging that makes our games
sound
like something they want to sell. (Not that they constrain themselves
to
describing the actual game they are putting in the box.) The backs of
boxes
seem to be designed to make it harder rather than easier to figure out
what
the game is about or how it really plays. It's goal is to get that box
off
the shelf and whatever it takes to do that seems fine to the
publisher.
There are also the full-page, content-free ads that the marketing
folks
invent as another of the publisher's offerings to the success of our
products. But by far the main contribution of the publishers is their
input
into our design process. They help us follow the lead of the last big
seller. Without their help we might flounder around and make something
original.
Thus, about 80% of the money goes to people who make their "votes"
based on
those superficial things that make the "sizzle" but not the
"substance".
Now, I don't want to imply that cool animated cut-scenes and appealing
segues are not nice things to have in a product. They can help players
get
into the story-line and enjoy the rest of the product. It's just that
in
too many cases products are getting sold just for their icing
regardless of
whether there is cake underneath it or not. (A friend described that
as "A
big hole where the fun should be"). And I would contend it's the
screwy
distribution system that not only allows it but encourages it. In
additions, corporate buyers, like all "market analysts" only know what
sold
last quarter and that's what they base their decisions on for this
quarter.
Hence, the chute is greased for sequels and "me too" games. Add to all
this
the data point that most computer software is bought when a computer
is
first purchased. I've heard numbers that say 80% of all software is
sold to
new users within a month of buying their computer. What that means is
that
sellers don't even have to worry about delivering trash and pissing
off
their buyers. They're not coming back and will be replaced by the next
sucker in line anyway! A final new trend is that very few retailers
will
let you exchange anything but defective software in a "like for like"
swap
these days. I think you can see how the system has nailed the coffin
shut
on innovation. It has ensured both the continued success of "sizzle"
and
the fact that most "steak" is tough if not rank.
OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit. But none of these aspects of the
current
system favor success in the new online medium we would like to
envision.
The shelf-space online will be unlimited and deception will be
punished by
players not returning to your site. Originality will be required but
"publishing" is unnecessary. Although sizzle won't hurt, substance in
the
form of addictive playability over time is essential. Instead of
software
that is primarily sold to new owners, the online environment will be
peopled by savvy consumers who are wired into their own interest
groups.
Revenue accumulation with almost all expected financial models rewards
repeat customers in the online world more than initial sales.
The Solo Trap
I'm aware of only one "multi-player only" game that was published by a
major publisher - my own Robot Rascals by Electronic Arts. There's a
reason. Solo sells. Or at least it has until now. All our metaphors,
imagery and concepts as designers have gone to support the single
player
game as the prime feature of our products with multi-player as an
occasional option. Solo games have a whole different style. Solo-games
could concentrate on entertaining just one user so all the resources
of the
machine could be devoted to that end.
Brilliant graphics and sounds could be used to set the scene for
players
making their experience more compelling. Segues and cut-scenes are
triggered as appropriate to that audience of one. No provision needed
to be
made as to what the other players would be doing while the awards
ceremony
visuals were running. Pandering to the only player didn't create any
tension with the others who might not be doing as well. In solo-games
they
were all AI stand-ins who would mindlessly wait while you gorged on
eye
candy. And the pandering didn't stop with their ego's either, solo
games
needed to push the platform too since one of the biggest perks for
many
hard-core players was showing off their hardware.
The features of a solo-player's game are geared to take advantage of
the
"learning curve" involved in the process of mastering a new game and
its
environment. There can be whole groups of features that only show up
in
certain environments as the player advances and learns to play.
Players of
those designs not only accepted the idea that more was better, they
demanded complexity for it's own sake or else they thought they were
being
cheated.
"Kitchen sink" design also has an advantage to solo-player games
besides
the titillation of the player. Designers could hide the limitations of
the
AI opponent behind the veil of added game elements that kept
challenging
the player when his opponent couldn't. Another aspect of the AI also
influenced solo-game design. Although subtle nuances of pattern
recognition
might be trivial for a human player, the most blatant patterns could
be a
nightmare for AI. Hence, there's a tendency to make the externals of
solo-games very conventional. Designers discard opportunities for
interactions with audio-visual cues in favor of algorithmic and
concrete
presentations. Rather than allude to something with subtle patterns or
sounds that humans excel at, designers used the same kind of logic in
their
representations as they used in their artificial opponent's analysis
of the
world. There aren't "maybes". There are only "zeros" and "ones". In
addition, the need for competent AI required that the internal models
be
computational which computers "love" rather than heuristic which
humans
enjoy.
Taken together these design elements may make good solo games but they
conspire to make games that are poorly suited to humans playing with
humans. Rather than "over the top" production values, online games
will
reward small downloads, good multi-player balance and smooth play
experiences. These will preclude pauses for "cut-scenes" and pandering
to a
single player's ego or hardware vanity. Since people derive much of
their
challenge while playing with each other from anticipating each other's
actions, complex feature sets are unnecessary. Simple sets of rules,
consistent over time make multi-player games more accessible. However,
subtle nuances in audio/visual presentation of products make for much
richer play experiences for human opponents. And, finally, heuristic
(rules
of thumb based) models are much more appealing to players than complex
numeric systems and once again play to the strengths of our brains
while
not sacrificing playability.
Those are the two biggest obstacles to be overcome in order to bring
online
games up to their potential. Both are very daunting and will probably
keep
a lot of good talent from coming to this area or being effective here.
It's
even possible that the distribution monster will attempt to sabotage
this
medium to protect its turf. Just the simple fact that their financial
model
sells the CD but gives away the "play time" makes "pay as you play"
and
"advertiser supported play" less appealing. However, I believe once we
have
some content designed specifically for online multi-player play, it
will be
no contest which kind of product people want to play. The concept of
continuing to tack the online option to basically solo CD games will
look
pitiful by comparison. Even if the online media creators have to move
to
some kind of sales of their software, without middlemen, manufacturing
and
shipping we could be pretty darn competitive. I used to tell folks who
bought my games that by the time EA got done with it all, I only got
about
$2 a copy so if they ever wanted to clear their conscience for
pirating
"M.U.L.E." they could just send the $2 straight to me. The shareware
distribution folks seem to make much better than that per copy.
Small Creative Shops
One of my favorite game designers is Sid Meier. When I met him in '89
and
was going to do a new game for Microprose I told him I was torn
between
doing one of two games. They were both board games whose design while
solid
in their own medium would be very interesting to work out in the
computer
game field. I wanted to do either "Axis and Allies" or "Civilization".
Sid
talked me into doing the WWII game (Command HQ it was called) and he
did
Civilization. Not that I would have done the amazing job that Sid did
with
that game but it does give one pause to consider the ways fate works
out.
Well, anyway, Sid just did a "Soapbox" piece for the magazine "Game
Developer" where he applauded the current situation that is allowing
small
creative shops to take a prominent place in the design of innovative
products. I assume he's alluding to groups like Blizzard, Westwood, ID
and
his own Firaxis and to a certain degree I agree with him. To whatever
extent the big boys (EA et al) will farm out money to these groups to
do
original stuff, it is more likely to succeed than trying to push a new
idea
through their in-house development system. However, the budgets (and
hence
the resources) that are required to build products for the CD market
are so
large that risk must be reduced and thus wild impulses constrained.
I think a much better case can be made that small creative shops will
be
the province of the new online medium where so much is unknown about
what
will work and hunches, instincts and wild impulses can and must be
followed. The budgets need not be the astronomical numbers ($1million
plus)
that are talked about for CD products. Online games need to be small
(under
10 meg) so the download won't be prohibitive. Since they are
multi-player
they need to be simple to play, without complex expanding features
that
make testing and debugging a nightmare during development. There's no
place
for fancy cinematic segues and cut scenes so the art requirement is
just
what's needed to support game play. And, finally since rev's are no
problem
when you don't have to master a CD and ship it to several thousand
retailers in time for the ads to hit, you can make the whole
development
process iterative. The game project can evolve and be financed in
stages
and still be productive. Taken together, I think these items create a
wonderful opportunity for innovative products financed inventively. To
me,
it's a situation very much reminiscent of when Trip Hawkins was
founding
Electronic Arts. He approached several game designers (including
myself) in
the early '80's to empower us to do the creative things that he
believed
the new medium (at that time floppy-based-games) could accomplish.
(The
"Can a computer make you cry?" ad was the hallmark of that era). A lot
of
neat stuff was done before the business was taken over by it's
distribution
system. We need another "Trip" to seed this next growth spurt. If the
new
"Trip" is in the audience, would he or she see me after this talk.
Have I
got a deal for you?!
The New Whos in Whoville
Another opportunity that I believe the online medium offers is a new
demographic landscape. Although to look at the "successful" games
online at
this point you'd think we were stuck with the 18 to 35 year old male
audience that populates the CD games world, it ain't so. The
demographic of
web-browsing (see "Online Magazine") has an average age of 33 and is
31%
female. They come primarily from educational and computer-related
occupations. Almost 60% have a college degree or better. They are
information consumers and have an average household income of $59,000
(these two numbers make advertisers excited). They have grown 10 fold
in
the last year and Nick Donatello of Odyssey Research predicts online
entertainment will exceed $1 billion in revenue by 2000. Those are
some
impressive numbers! Designing games to reach them will be an amazing
challenge. We will need to think creatively about what a game is.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what might be. I can tell you some of
the
pieces that make for good multi-player games but my guess is that the
big
breakthrough will be as like our current games as "Doom" is like
"Pong".
Good Multi-player Design Elements
Here comes my annual punch list of things to consider when designing
multi-player games updated and expanded from last year based on what
we've
learned:
* Build in the "Norm Effect" if at all possible. This is named for
the
character from "Cheers" who when he enters the bar is greeted by
everyone calling his name in unison. Pitiful old IRC chat-rooms
can
provide some of this effect so surely we can find some way to
welcome
people into our game environments.
* "Zero sum" is bad. Games where I win and you lose are bad. Worse
still
is "I win and all the rest of you lose". Notwithstanding the
current
cultural obsession with endzone strutting by winners, losers do
not
enjoy themselves and if you can help take the sting out of it,
you
should. Alliances, cooperative play, ranked "winners" rather than
"A
winner" with a bunch of losers are all options.
* Pacing needs variety. Slow periods should follow intense ones and
forced "time-outs" can offer opportunities to socialize, catch
your
breath and anticipate things to come. Remember, the players no
longer
have a "pause key" as they did in a solo-game.
* Strategies need "wiggle room". People have different personal
styles
and when playing against each other it's great to let them "do it
their own way" rather than a single approach that all must
follow. If
possible you should balance the game such that a strategic
planner for
instance might not always beat the joystick jockey or the
detailed
tactical type. A game that allows for diverse people to play
diverse
ways is always best.
* Legends must grow. Provide ways for players to carry their
experiences
with them. "Game films" are an excellent (and reasonably
cost-effective option) in games where what's sent between the
player's
computers is a stream of "deltas". Saving that stream and running
it
back through the game engine provides an opportunity to review
what
happened during the game. This turns an ephemeral, fast paced
experience into a story that can be used to "save face" if the
player
lost, to learn how to win or just to chronicle their
accomplishments.
At the very least, try to include ongoing statistics or character
attributes outside the environment of a single game execution.
* Court your newbies. Nothing will destroy a player's interest in
your
game quicker than being humiliated a few times when they are just
trying to figure out what to do. If possible build in inducements
for
advanced players to help newbies in order to get something to
advance
further in the game environment -- like taking an "apprentice"
might
be the only path to "master rank". At the very least try to make
starting as safe on player's egos as you can.
* Allow personalization. Let players define their own icons that
the
others see or somehow personalize their own game space. A big
part of
the enjoyment of being with others is expressing yourself. A
bunch of
player avatars all dressed from the same menu gives me the
creeps.
Encourage graffiti.
* Keep the features down. When humans play each other there's this
"he
thinks that I think that he thinks …" kind of mental gymnastics
taking
place. This is far more interesting than another unit type or
another
option to evaluate to almost everyone.
* Include audio/visual subtleties. People are remarkably good at
recognizing patterns almost subconsciously and they also find it
rewarding. A couple of pixels blinking in the corner of the
screen and
a small sound effect that allude to a possibility allows a player
to
feel very astute when they can put it together with an outcome.
This
can also facilitate the personal playing style mentioned above
since
some folks are better at it than others.
* Avoid numbers. Almost no one enjoys calculations. (At least no
one
"normal"). Humans prefer heuristic (rules of thumb) relationships
or
continuous equations far more. The heuristics feel good when you
figure them out and the continuous equations can only be
predicted
which also seems to scratch an itch in our brains.
* Include spectators. Leave room for "lurkers" to watch games being
played and even to effect them in minor ways if possible. A
design
that includes taking turns, which makes the other players
spectators
for part of the time, can be interesting if what the player is
doing
has an effect on them, is interesting to watch and they can
tease,
taunt and kibitz while watching.
* Facilitate relationships. Allow players to form clubs, clans,
groups
and facilitate scheduled as well impromptu meetings online. Help
strangers mix and friends find each other.
* Use time limits. Whenever possible design your game so it can be
played within a fixed time limit. This will allow people to
schedule
their involvement. A game you can play a couple of times in an
evening
would be a good design goal. If you can't end the game at
specific
times try to at least facilitate a graceful exit opportunity such
that
a player quits while they are having fun and not after they're so
exhausted they'll never come back again.
* Include chance. Although most players hate the idea of random
events
that will destroy their nice safe predictable strategies, nothing
keeps a game alive like a wrench in the works. Do not allow
players to
decide this issue. They don't know it but we're offering them an
excuse for when they lose ("It was that damn random event that
did me
in!") and an opportunity to "beat the odds" when they win.
* Keep the balance. Try to keep the distance between the losers and
the
winners small enough that the outcome is in doubt as long as
possible.
You can adjust random events, attrition factors or whatever.
They'll
thank you for keeping the games interesting even though you
should
probably not tell them what you're doing.
* Include cooperation. Even in basically competitive games you can
allow
for alliances, collusion or at least less cutthroat behavior. In
M.U.L.E. I used an interesting trick that would not allow a
"Winner"
unless a certain threshold of colony success was reached. In
order to
win players had to sometimes help each other out so the whole
colony
would thrive thus making the balance closer and play more
interesting.
* Make 'em stay. Figure out incentives to keep players to stay till
the
end of a game. It ruins everyone's fun when players bail out
prematurely. At the very least you can publish the percent of the
time
they bailed.
* Allow handicapping. Let players handicap themselves if they want.
Some
players are willing to play with one hand behind their back so
let
them. (The most common use of this will be parents and kids
playing
together).
* Facilitate special events. "Magical appearances" (scheduled and
otherwise) in FRPs are cool. Strategy game tournaments
(sanctioned and
not) are too.
* Leave room for ads. Banners will be around for a while. You might
even
want to let Nike outfit your monsters with shoes - for a price.
Be
creative.
'96 Online Game
Design Paper -Go Back Home-
Kevin McGuire
: >So how did she die? I was just wondering where she went because she has not
: >released a game in a while. Its sad to hear.
: The story didn't say.
From her web page, I would guess some sort of cancer, but that particular
page is down, so no details...
Thierry Nguyen
wrote:
>So how did she die? I was just wondering where she went because she has not
>released a game in a while. Its sad to hear.
>
>FQ
>
>
I just talked to Johnny, and it was essentially a long, protracted
battle with cancer that started at the lung and worked its way to her
entire body.
Thierry Nguyen
CGW
Posting this in the occasional free-minute or two at the office
Nsenstive
won't be shedding any tears over Dani Berry. You can call me an insensitive
bastard, but I truly morn the loss of Dan Bunten. You see Dan made all
those games that we all adore so much.
Dani instead broke up a family trying to "find himself" and was just living
off of Dan's glory. The wrong person grabbed that lifetime award that
night. Don't get me wrong. No one deserves to die of cancer and I don't
have anything against homosexuals. But anyone who hurts other people like
Dani did doesn't get a lot of respect from me.
My .02 cents.
Mark LaPlante
inside was still the same, perhaps even better than before. I would think
that part of the reason that Ms. Berry no longer produced as many games was
due to prejudice. I continue to be amazed at how people still equate
physical appearance to ability to create.
Mark
Nsenstive wrote in message ...
Stuart L. Dollar
wrote:
>Before you all get carried away in this outpouring of grief, I personally
>won't be shedding any tears over Dani Berry. You can call me an insensitive
This just goes to show just how callous you are. Hardly something to
be proud of.
>bastard, but I truly morn the loss of Dan Bunten. You see Dan made all
>those games that we all adore so much.
Hmm. Dani was still making games after the operation. True her heyday
was before the operation, but that doesn't discount what she did
afterwords.
>
>Dani instead broke up a family trying to "find himself" and was just living
>off of Dan's glory. The wrong person grabbed that lifetime award that
Hmm. Lots of nice, social conservatives break up families as well.
Over 50% of all heterosexual folks have at least one extramarital
affair. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce, all but a tiny
minority of whom purported to be heterosexual. This including many of
the hypocrites who would purport to be such champions of "family
values."
>night. Don't get me wrong. No one deserves to die of cancer and I don't
>have anything against homosexuals. But anyone who hurts other people like
Oh, save the apology. First off, its a transsexual, not a homosexual.
Get the terms correct. They mean entirely different things. I can't
say as I comprehend either lifestyle, but I won't condemn somebody
strictly on the basis of striving to become comfortable with their own
sexuality, at least so long as it doesn't cause tremendous, permanent
physical or emotional harm to children or women.
Being transsexual, or homosexual, or a tulip didn't cause any pain
that Dani might have inflicted. Living a life she wasn't happy with
undoubtedly hurt her, and HAD to have spilled over into the family
life she would have had prior to an "operation."
I would suggest that if a friend of mine was married to somebody so
uncomfortable with their own sexuality as to want to become the
opposite sex, I would probably feel my friend would be better off
getting divorced.
>My .02 cents.
And worth every penny.
Stu
Stuart L. Dollar
"Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God." -Thomas Jefferson
Just remove the NoSpAmM to reply!
RBK
--
Rob
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:50:51 -0500, "Nsenstive" <ba...@simpson.com>
wrote:
>Before you all get carried away in this outpouring of grief, I personally
>won't be shedding any tears over Dani Berry. You can call me an insensitive
>bastard, but I truly morn the loss of Dan Bunten. You see Dan made all
>those games that we all adore so much.
>
>Dani instead broke up a family trying to "find himself" and was just living
>off of Dan's glory. The wrong person grabbed that lifetime award that
>night. Don't get me wrong. No one deserves to die of cancer and I don't
>have anything against homosexuals. But anyone who hurts other people like
Krud
>
>won't be shedding any tears over Dani Berry. You can call me an insensitive
>bastard, but I truly morn the loss of Dan Bunten. You see Dan made all
>those games that we all adore so much.
Weren't they the same person?
>Dani instead broke up a family trying to "find himself" and was just living
>off of Dan's glory. The wrong person grabbed that lifetime award that
>night. Don't get me wrong. No one deserves to die of cancer and I don't
>have anything against homosexuals. But anyone who hurts other people like
>Dani did doesn't get a lot of respect from me.
Yeah, I think you do have something against homosexuals. Personally, I could
care less as long as the person doesn't start another television talk show.
Rupaul is about as much as I can handle. Anyway, I think the point was
Dan/Dani's contributions to gaming, not his/her personal life.
-Krud
Roger Christie
>
> Nsenstive wrote in message ...
> >
> >Before you all get carried away in this outpouring of grief, I personally
> >won't be shedding any tears over Dani Berry. You can call me an insensitive
> >bastard, but I truly morn the loss of Dan Bunten. You see Dan made all
> >those games that we all adore so much.
>
> Weren't they the same person?
>
> >Dani instead broke up a family trying to "find himself" and was just living
> >off of Dan's glory. The wrong person grabbed that lifetime award that
> >night. Don't get me wrong. No one deserves to die of cancer and I don't
> >have anything against homosexuals. But anyone who hurts other people like
> >Dani did doesn't get a lot of respect from me.
Deserves more than this wretched weasel, thats for sure.
>
> Yeah, I think you do have something against homosexuals. Personally, I could
> care less as long as the person doesn't start another television talk show.
> Rupaul is about as much as I can handle. Anyway, I think the point was
> Dan/Dani's contributions to gaming, not his/her personal life.
>
It also ought to be noted that what Dani/Dan suffered from was /not/
homosexuality.
> -Krud
Mark Asher
wrote:
>Before you all get carried away in this outpouring of grief, I personally
>won't be shedding any tears over Dani Berry. You can call me an insensitive
>bastard, but I truly morn the loss of Dan Bunten. You see Dan made all
>those games that we all adore so much.
>
>Dani instead broke up a family trying to "find himself" and was just living
>off of Dan's glory. The wrong person grabbed that lifetime award that
>night. Don't get me wrong. No one deserves to die of cancer and I don't
>have anything against homosexuals. But anyone who hurts other people like
>Dani did doesn't get a lot of respect from me.
If Bunten broke up a family, that's too bad. But I hope you have
nothing against someone undergoing a sex-change operation. That's kind
of silly and none of your business. Face it, some people really feel
like they should have born as the opposite sex and are happier once
they undergo the operation.
Mark Asher
steven daniel hilberg
Furthermore, it wouldn't have 'broken up the family' if they didn't cling to
their little ideals that it was just _wrong_ (nevermind the fact that if you
asked them why I'm sure they would have sat there and sputtered furiously).
It's the same person -- why does their physical sex have anything to do with
it? While it may have been traumatic for her family, just think of how
traumatic it was for her. Grow up 'Nsensitive' -- Dani is the same person
as Dan was -- if she had stayed 'Dan' and just gone around in a dress, acting
female, would you like her any more?
And as several other people have informed you, Dani was a transexual, not a
homosexual. There's a dramatic difference. Perhaps you should know of what
you speak before you try and go on a diatribe about the 'evils of Dani Berry.'
--
Steve Hilberg <Necromancer> Professional Writer-in-Training
<hil...@students.uiuc.edu> CCSO Site Consultant
<JustinM...@battle.net> If I spoke for CCSO, I would be making
more than five bucks an hour, get it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And if He ever suffered, it was me who did His crying...."
-- Concrete Blonde, "Tomorrow Wendy"
Krud
>
>It also ought to be noted that what Dani/Dan suffered from was /not/
>homosexuality.
Yeah, he/she suffered from cancer. The only thing homosexuals suffer from is
an ignorant, homophobic society. It wasn't until a friend of mine died from
AIDS that I took the time to think about it. Unfortunately I never had the
chance to tell him. I won't make that mistake again.
-Krud
Roger Christie
True enough, but what I meant was that transgender disorder is
/not/ homosexuality. Not that they're treated any the better for it. :/
> -Krud
Fred Louderman
> On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:50:51 -0500, "Nsenstive" <ba...@simpson.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Before you all get carried away in this outpouring of grief, I personally
> >won't be shedding any tears over Dani Berry. You can call me an insensitive
> >bastard, but I truly morn the loss of Dan Bunten. You see Dan made all
> >those games that we all adore so much.
> >
> >Dani instead broke up a family trying to "find himself" and was just living
> >off of Dan's glory. The wrong person grabbed that lifetime award that
> >night. Don't get me wrong. No one deserves to die of cancer and I don't
> >have anything against homosexuals. But anyone who hurts other people like
> >Dani did doesn't get a lot of respect from me.
>
I think that sometimes we make the mistake of evaluating others lives based on
our
own limited perspective and experiences leading us to intolerence and
misunderstanding.
In a different vein, what about getting MULE resurrected? As far as multiplayer
gaming goes,
MULE stood out as one of the best ever. It seems to me that this would be a great
net game.
We need more stategic oriented net games that can be played within 1 - 2 hours. I
wonder if enough people
generated interest on this if some company could be encouraged to take a look at
this....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
fred louderman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
David Pipes
>
> Before you all get carried away in this outpouring of grief, I personally
> won't be shedding any tears over Dani Berry. You can call me an insensitive
> bastard, but I truly morn the loss of Dan Bunten. You see Dan made all
> those games that we all adore so much.
>
> Dani instead broke up a family trying to "find himself" and was just living
> off of Dan's glory. The wrong person grabbed that lifetime award that
> night. Don't get me wrong. No one deserves to die of cancer and I don't
> have anything against homosexuals. But anyone who hurts other people like
> Dani did doesn't get a lot of respect from me.
>
And what do you think of people who send thinly veiled hate messages
about dead people from behind pseudonyms?
--
----------------------------------------
David Pipes
Remove P from return address to reply.
----------------------------------------
Terry A. McKelvey
Krud wrote:
> Roger Christie wrote in message <35A372...@spinach.xylogics.com>...
> >
> >It also ought to be noted that what Dani/Dan suffered from was /not/
> >homosexuality.
>
> Yeah, he/she suffered from cancer. The only thing homosexuals suffer from is
> an ignorant, homophobic society. It wasn't until a friend of mine died from
> AIDS that I took the time to think about it. Unfortunately I never had the
> chance to tell him. I won't make that mistake again.
>
> -Krud
You are absolutely right, that the only thing homosexuals suffer from (in the US)
is an ignorant, homophobic society. I would add that all too many people lack
any sort of compassion and tolerance for others not like themselves. They are
such simple things that I truly do not know why so many people lack them,
including many so-called Christians who lack the compassion of Christ. It is so
sad. The world would be so much better if there was more compassion and
tolerance.
Terry
Richie Young
>/not/ homosexuality. Not that they're treated any the better for it. :/
Ah yes, you just made homosexuality sound like it was some sort of
disease or affliction like cancer. Which is what Krud was calling you
on, not whether you knew the differences between transexuals and
homosexuals.
Mike Scott
Yeah, tolerance, we speak it so much, yet we do not tolerate Christians?
How hypocritical can we get? You are right, Christ would have compassion
on homosexuals. He would associate with them, but not because of
tolerance, he would do so for the sake of winning souls. Oops, I said it,
I'm a fanatical Christian, lets see how much tolerance I get now. :-)
As a Christian I have compassion for Dani, I'm sorry to hear of his/her
passing. I played many of the games that this person created and loved
them. M.U.L.E. was the first game that ever hooked me into the computer
gaming world. I do not judge people for what they have done, that is
under Gods power. But I also know that God will judge between right and wrong
and I dont have a say in the matter. Nuff said.. Let the non-tolerance
begin towards my beliefs now.
Mike
Roger Christie
Excuse me. I was not the person that was disparaging homosexuals.
I was calling the fellow who did on it, as was Krud, while trying
to point out that he was compouding his stupidity by not even
understanding that homosexuality and transgender disorders are
not the same thing.
Pay attention to who says what before you jump on someone please.
ReluctantMessiah
Mike Scott <mmcc...@hyper.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, tolerance, we speak it so much, yet we do not tolerate Christians?
>How hypocritical can we get?
Intolerance won't be tolerated, where is the hypocrisy? If Danni wanted
to spread the gospel proclaiming that getting a sex change was not only
right for him but right for everyone else too, you would see where
tolerance towards him would end.
>gaming world. I do not judge people for what they have done, that is
>under Gods power. But I also know that God will judge between right and wrong
>and I dont have a say in the matter. Nuff said.. Let the non-tolerance
>begin towards my beliefs now.
I don't give two shits about what anyone believes, only about their
actions and, to a lesser extent, what they say. I may think that you are
mistaken, but it is no concern of mine until you make it so by spreading
intolerance my way.
-jc
--
-----
Note: email to my account is automatically deleted because I got tired of
manually deleting all the spam I receive. All spammers must die.
Krud
>
>I don't give two shits about what anyone believes, only about their
>actions and, to a lesser extent, what they say. I may think that you are
>mistaken, but it is no concern of mine until you make it so by spreading
>intolerance my way.
A wise man once said, "All that we are is the sum of all that we have
thought". Either that, or I read it on a bathroom wall somewhere.
-Krud
George Mealer
mmcc...@hyper.com says...
> On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Terry A. McKelvey wrote:
>
> Yeah, tolerance, we speak it so much, yet we do not tolerate Christians?
> on homosexuals. He would associate with them, but not because of
> tolerance, he would do so for the sake of winning souls. Oops, I said it,
> I'm a fanatical Christian, lets see how much tolerance I get now. :-)
> As a Christian I have compassion for Dani, I'm sorry to hear of his/her
> passing. I played many of the games that this person created and loved
> them. M.U.L.E. was the first game that ever hooked me into the computer
> under Gods power. But I also know that God will judge between right and wrong
> and I dont have a say in the matter. Nuff said.. Let the non-tolerance
> begin towards my beliefs now.
>
>
This is all getting off-topic as hell, but I'd just like to point out
that Christians don't have the monopoly on compassion.
As a *human*, I have compassion for Dani, and am sorry to hear of what
sounds to be an extremely unpleasant passing.
Although I certainly didn't know her personally, I knew the mark she left
on MY world...endless hours with M.U.L.E., friends that flunked out of
college primarily due to Command HQ, and all of the influences that she
left on computer gaming in general.
I didn't know her, but I'll sure as hell miss her.
Geo
--
George Mealer
g...@snarksoft.com
"Let your mind wander and never come back." -- Skyclad
Mike Scott
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.980709...@carbon.concom.com>,
> Mike Scott <mmcc...@hyper.com> wrote:
> >
> >Yeah, tolerance, we speak it so much, yet we do not tolerate Christians?
> >How hypocritical can we get?
>
> Intolerance won't be tolerated, where is the hypocrisy? If Danni wanted
> to spread the gospel proclaiming that getting a sex change was not only
> right for him but right for everyone else too, you would see where
> tolerance towards him would end.
The hypocrisy is right in front of you! You want total tolerance towards
everything but intolerance.. Not very tolerant huh? :-)
> >gaming world. I do not judge people for what they have done, that is
> >under Gods power. But I also know that God will judge between right and wrong
> >and I dont have a say in the matter. Nuff said.. Let the non-tolerance
> >begin towards my beliefs now.
>
> I don't give two shits about what anyone believes, only about their
> actions and, to a lesser extent, what they say. I may think that you are
> mistaken, but it is no concern of mine until you make it so by spreading
> intolerance my way.
>
> -jc
>
As you could see in my first message, I was not judging or putting down
anyones beliefs or actions. My actions and what I say are my own, so be
tolerant towards that. You will find that (at least among the Christians
that I know) that most feel the way I do. I do not judge anyone, its not
my job. I dont agree with certain things, but that has nothing to do with
being tolerant towards others beliefs.
Mike
Mike Scott
> ReluctantMessiah wrote in message <90000030...@iris.nyx.net>...
> >
> >I don't give two shits about what anyone believes, only about their
> >actions and, to a lesser extent, what they say. I may think that you are
> >mistaken, but it is no concern of mine until you make it so by spreading
> >intolerance my way.
>
>
> A wise man once said, "All that we are is the sum of all that we have
> thought". Either that, or I read it on a bathroom wall somewhere.
>
> -Krud
>
>
Mens or Womens bathroom? :-)
Mike
AmyH832541
cut off because you want to be something
different than what God made you is damn
sure wrong. I have no tolerance for what is wrong.
Wayne
Mark Asher
"Judgement is mine, saith the Lord."
"Judge not, or so shall ye be judged."
That's your mistake, you see. You're going against the Word. God
doesn't want you to set yourself up as judge. I have no tolerance for
intolerance.
Mark Asher
ReluctantMessiah
Mike Scott <mmcc...@hyper.com> wrote:
>The hypocrisy is right in front of you! You want total tolerance towards
>everything but intolerance.. Not very tolerant huh? :-)
Not very? That is about as tolerant as can reasonably be expected, which
makes for no hypocrisy by any definition that I know of.
-jc
Roger Christie
>
> Homosexuality is wrong. Having your dick
> cut off because you want to be something
> different than what God made you is damn
> sure wrong. I have no tolerance for what is wrong.
>
Personally, I have no tolerance for morons.
*>PLONK<*
Nai-Chi Lee
ReluctantMessiah <jcop...@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.980709...@carbon.concom.com>,
>Mike Scott <mmcc...@hyper.com> wrote:
>>The hypocrisy is right in front of you! You want total tolerance towards
>>everything but intolerance.. Not very tolerant huh? :-)
>
>Not very? That is about as tolerant as can reasonably be expected, which
>makes for no hypocrisy by any definition that I know of.
just cut it off... urr... I meant cut it out.
--
Nai-Chi
Eric van Bezooijen
Kevin McGuire <Kevin McGuire kevin...@sas.upenn.edu.moo> wrote:
>Old Salt (old....@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: >So how did she die? I was just wondering where she went because she has not
>: >released a game in a while. Its sad to hear.
>
>: The story didn't say.
>
>From her web page, I would guess some sort of cancer, but that particular
>page is down, so no details...
I believe it was lung cancer (at least initially).
-Eric
--
Eric van Bezooijen er...@activesw.com http://www.activesw.com/~eric
"But the meaning of life is a mystery, that we don't understand so far.
And the music of life is a rhapsody if you're happy the way that you are"
- "Freudiana" [Above are my opinions. If you don't like them, get your own!]
Krud
<199807091755...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Homosexuality is wrong. Having your dick
>cut off because you want to be something
>different than what God made you is damn
>sure wrong. I have no tolerance for what is wrong.
>
> Wayne
I've always liked things that were wrong. They seem to be the most fun. And
I like Dan/Dani better than Wayne/Amy. No offense.
-Krud
Eric Evans
do not all know wrong from right. It isn't built into all of us, or if it
is, it gets shorted out in some folks. Even then, wrong and right are a
judgment call. What you call wrong, others may call right.
It's as plain as day in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin? Where does
it say that? A lot of historians feel that the Bible actually promotes
homosexuality. I'm sure you disagree with that viewpoint, that's simply
your judgment call.
Regardless, I'll point out again to try to thrust home the point others
here have made, transexuality is totally different than homosexuality.
AmyH832541 wrote in message
<199807100248...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Amy is my wife and the account is in her name. The ability to tell wrong
from
>right
>is built in all of us. We all know that to kill
>somebody is wrong even if nobody tells
>us so. That is the way I feel about homosexuality. It says it plan as day
in
>the
>Bible that it is a sin. Maybe all of us true
>Texans were brought up right and the rest of
>yall were not, but that does not surprise
>me. These are just my thoughts. No offense
>intended.
>
> Wayne
steven daniel hilberg
>Homosexuality is wrong. Having your dick
>cut off because you want to be something
>different than what God made you is damn
>sure wrong. I have no tolerance for what is wrong.
>
> Wayne
Interesting that this person's email address starts with 'Amy' yet he calls
himself Wayne....
I won't even START with the AOL jokes....
Andy S.
amyh8...@aol.com (AmyH832541) wrote:
> Homosexuality is wrong. Having your dick
> cut off because you want to be something
> different than what God made you is damn
> sure wrong. I have no tolerance for what is wrong.
>
> Wayne
>
How about having a cancerous tumor cut off, thus making you different than
what God made you. I suppose that's wrong too.
Andy S.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
AmyH832541
Stuart L. Dollar
>sure wrong. I have no tolerance for what is wrong.
Or much else, by all appearances.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Hmm. Seem to remember reading that somewhere. Ah, I know. The
Bible. Silly me. I forgot that you called yourself a Christian.
Stu
Stuart L. Dollar
"Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God." -Thomas Jefferson
Just remove the NoSpAmM to reply!
AmyH832541
organ. What an idiot.
Wayne
It's not an entrance but an exit
Grimfarrow
AmyH832541 wrote:
It is really sad to see people like you still out there.
Grimfarrow
Krud
>right
>is built in all of us. We all know that to kill
>somebody is wrong even if nobody tells
>us so. That is the way I feel about homosexuality. It says it plan as day in
>the
>Bible that it is a sin. Maybe all of us true
>Texans were brought up right and the rest of
>yall were not, but that does not surprise
>me. These are just my thoughts. No offense
>intended.
Hey Wayne/Amy, isn't it a sin to *play a game* that involves killing people?
Or is it ok to just pretend as long as you don't actually do it? It's people
like you who give religious fanatics a bad name. All I can tell you is that
when you reach the pearly gates, you're in for a big surprise. Better learn
to control your hate a little better before it's too late. God doesn't like
hate. What does your bible say about that? Your opinion is offensive whether
you intend it to be or not.
-Krud
Krud
AmyH832541 wrote in message
<199807100450...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>A cancerous tumor is not a normal working
>organ. What an idiot.
Your membership in the "International Single-Digit I.Q. Club" has been
approved. In fact, you've already been nominated for "Grand Pubah".
Congratulations.... For your initiation, all you have to do is lynch a
homosexual and tie him to the back of your pickup truck then drag him until
he's dead. Isn't that what people like you do for fun on a Saturday night, or
is that just the white supremacists?
-Krud
Tom Harrigan
away? I hadn't heard of this and it's quite unfortunate. I do agree that the
unending debates seen in this thread should be moved elsewhere.
What had Dani been doing lately? Was she working on anything before she
passed away? Again, most unfortunate.
Thanks for any info.
Tom
Denny Atkin wrote in message <35a8b77c...@news.mindspring.com>...
>I've known Dan/Dani since 1985, and he (and she) was a great person who I'm
>really going to miss.
>
>Can you guys have some respect for her and start a new thread (preferably
in an
>appropriate newsgroup) on the debate about transexualism and god's view of
it,
>and let it drop from this thread? Whether or not you're the judgemental
type,
>hopefully you have the decency to realize that a memorial thread is NOT the
>place for the topic.
>
>Dani was a great game designer, whether for pure gameplay in games like
MULE
>and Seven Cities of Gold, or for innovation in games like Robot Rascals and
>Modem Wars. Let's remember that and leave the politics and religion where
they
>belong--elsewhere.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Denny Atkin / den...@mindspring.com
> I have not yet begun to procrastinate
> ---------------------------------------------------
Ken Mechail
from
>right
>is built in all of us. We all know that to kill
>somebody is wrong even if nobody tells
>us so. That is the way I feel about homosexuality. It says it plan as day
in
>the
>Bible that it is a sin. Maybe all of us true
>Texans were brought up right and the rest of
>yall were not, but that does not surprise
>me. These are just my thoughts. No offense
>intended.
>
Actually, anyone brought to believe the bible and not their own minds are
pretty much useless sons of bitches in my book.
The bible was written by men, translated by men, and interpreted by men to
control other men...
Think for yourself. No one on the planet is endowed with enough spiritual
knowledge to tell you what "God" (if such a being even exists)
wants/feels/believes.
-Ken
Andy S.
amyh8...@aol.com (AmyH832541) wrote:
> A cancerous tumor is not a normal working
> organ. What an idiot.
>
>
> It's not an entrance but an exit
>
How about people who get plastic surgery, tatoos, get their ears pierced.
According to your twisted logic, they are all committing grevious sins. Talk
about idiots.
bot...@iex.com
Danielle Paula Berry, 49, of Little Rock died Friday, July 3, 1998,
following a battle with lung cancer. She was a nationally recognized
computer game designer. Her games included "Seven Cities of Gold",
"M.U.L.E.," "Robot Rascals", "Command H.Q.," and "Modern Wars." (sic. "Modem
Wars") Her pioneering work in this field was honored in May 1998, by the
Computer Games Developers Association, with its first ever Lifetime
Achievement Award. She was inducted into the Computer Gaming World Hall of
Fame for "M.U.L.E.," and "Command H.Q." was name war game of the year in
1991. Danielle was a loving parent and a courageous individual. She was a
non- judgmental, caring person, who modeled the value of personal integrity.
She is survived by her sons, Daniel and Nicholas, and daughter Melanie; her
mother from Jacksonville, Ark.; her father and stepmother from Beebe, Ark.,
and four brothers and one sister; She is also survived by her large family
of loving friends including Phyllis Thomas, Emily Sneddon, Marty Johnston,
Margaret Cohen, Ralph Hyman, Brian Moriarty, Eric Goldberg, Brian Kennerly,
Ann Thompson, Helene Rush, and Susan Merrow. Memorials should be made in
lieu of flowers to Hospice of Central Arkansas. A memorial service will be
at 3 p.m. today at Roller-Chenal Funeral Home Chapel, 13801 Chenal Parkway.
----------------------------------------------------------
I was a tester for Dan for "Cytron Masters" & "M.U.L.E.", and later went to
work for him at Ozark Softscape helping with the Apple ][ port of "Seven
Cities of Gold". I also worked on "Heart of Africa", the apple version of
"Robot Rascals", and the apple version of "Modem Wars" (never finished).
I learned an incredible amount from working with Dan & will miss him. I
hadn't spoken to him in several years, but I had received Email from him just
a few weeks ago. I only "knew" him as a male, so I'll always remember him
that way. He was one of the smartest individuals I've ever worked with, we
had many good times together playing computer games & board games.
Mark Botner
bot...@iex.com
Terry A. McKelvey
AmyH832541 wrote:
> Amy is my wife and the account is in her name. The ability to tell wrong from
> right
> is built in all of us. We all know that to kill
> somebody is wrong even if nobody tells
> us so. That is the way I feel about homosexuality. It says it plan as day in
> the
> Bible that it is a sin. Maybe all of us true
> Texans were brought up right and the rest of
> yall were not, but that does not surprise
> me. These are just my thoughts. No offense
> intended.
>
> Wayne
If homosexuality is wrong, then God must be doing "wrong" things because it is
absolutely clear from the scientific literature that homosexuality is determined
mostly from conditions that occur prior to birth, i.e. genetics and pre-birth
environment (such as exposure to maternal hormones). No human has any real
control over those conditions, least of all the developing fetus! Therefore,
that process for everyone, including homosexuals, can only be in the hands of
God. So, logically, it appears that God makes homosexuals.
You could argue that God does not want homosexuals to act on their nature, but
that would mean that God is particularly cruel and vindictive, making a person
have a different sexuality and expecting that person to go through life not
enjoying that sexuality while others that are made heterosexuals can enjoy their
sexuality. I believe that if there is a god, then He is a loving and
compassionate god who would not do such a thing. I think that either the Bible
gets it wrong after the many translations and copyings over the centuries or
people just interpret it incorrectly (or most likely both). Homosexual sexual
activity simply does not harm other people, although it makes some people who are
aware of others practicing it hysterical. If making some people hysterical was
considered harming those people, then just about everything would "harm" someone
and thus it clearly would be an illogical and unworkable standard. I believe
that acts harming other people are the only real sins. To me, those people who
torment or attempt to persecute homosexuals by legislation against them are the
real sinners, not the homosexuals. Wayne, I am not accusing you of this. These
are just my thoughts on this way-off-topic subject.
Terry
dsh...@nova.wright.edu
> Amy is my wife and the account is in her name. The ability to tell wrong from
> right
> is built in all of us. We all know that to kill
> somebody is wrong even if nobody tells
> us so. That is the way I feel about homosexuality. It says it plan as day in
> the
> Bible that it is a sin. Maybe all of us true
> Texans were brought up right and the rest of
> yall were not, but that does not surprise
> me. These are just my thoughts. No offense
> intended.
offense taken.
It's believers like you that give us all a bad name.
It also says plain as day in the bible that pi = 3, but the next time
I build a bridge I don't think I'll let moses do the calculations for me.
You know Adam and Eve may have eaten that apple that gave them the
gift of KNOWING what was right and what was wrong, but look at your
history and see what kind of worlds are created by those
who believe "the ability to tell right from wrong is built in
all of us" before you come preaching that in my corner of the world.
Bet you're confused why people think you're a nazi.
Surety is the refuge of the pharasee.
dfs
AmyH832541
will not reply anymore. I am not against
homosexuality or transsexuals and I am sorry
to see Dani pass. I just don't believe that
we should accept this lifestyle as normal or
correct. The gay community is trying to
pass laws to teach this lifestyle in our schools.
I don't want somebody to tell my 7 year old
daughter that it is ok to be a lesbo. I'm
sorry if I stepped on some of yalls
sensibilitys but these are my thoughts
I would be willing to bet that most people
feel the same as do. Sometimes it's not good to be politicaly correct.
Now on with the games!
Wayne
Nostromo
'psuedo-religious/theological' discussions, but this one slipped through,
so now I just can't resist - if I have to read it, then so are you going to
have to! :-)...
>If homosexuality is wrong, then God must be doing "wrong" things because it is
>absolutely clear from the scientific literature that homosexuality is determined
>mostly from conditions that occur prior to birth, i.e. genetics and pre-birth
>environment (such as exposure to maternal hormones). No human has any real
I'll take you're word for it Terry...though I haven't studied the genetic
pre-dispositions of homosexuality in any great detail.
>control over those conditions, least of all the developing fetus! Therefore,
>that process for everyone, including homosexuals, can only be in the hands of
>God. So, logically, it appears that God makes homosexuals.
As well as people with cerebral palsy, Parkinson's disease & 300,000 other
congential/chronic conditions, Terry. But we could blame God for
everything, couldn't we? So long as we're unhappy with the design of the
Universe and all of Creation or our own lives, let's not change our
attitude, let's blame God instead. Convenient, isn't it, to have a God we
only believe in when we want something, or want someone to blame? If you're
going to argue Theology in a Judeo/Chrisitan framework, at least make sure
you have all of HIS facts straight. As far as Man's condition goes, the
bible quite clearly 'blames' it on the Original Sin (which we all inherit
and *perpetuate by Free Choice*), & our fall from Grace henceforth. So, the
bible is quite unambiguous about this - we only have ourselves to blame, if
blame we must...like the apples do far? :-)
>You could argue that God does not want homosexuals to act on their nature, but
>that would mean that God is particularly cruel and vindictive, making a person
>have a different sexuality and expecting that person to go through life not
>enjoying that sexuality while others that are made heterosexuals can enjoy their
>sexuality. I believe that if there is a god, then He is a loving and
You use a powerful word like *believe*, and then follow it immediately by a
conditional 'if'??? Not a good way to bring home a confident argument...
And I'm sure there's a lot of pedophiles out there arguing the "I was only
acting on my nature, your Honor" line...so where are we now?
>compassionate god who would not do such a thing. I think that either the Bible
>gets it wrong after the many translations and copyings over the centuries or
>people just interpret it incorrectly (or most likely both). Homosexual sexual
Yes, we'd all like to believe our Creator is all warm & fuzzy & we're all
daddy's little boys & girls, right? Unfortunately (& you knew this was
coming), our dear Lord also has the very important self-appointed job of
dispensing Justice & Vengeance, if need be. In fact, he did a lot more of
that with the Hebrews in the beginning, before Jesus came to show the side
of Himself which was the lamb & the warm & fuzzy wooly God. :-)
>activity simply does not harm other people, although it makes some people who are
Harm to others is irrelevant :-). In Christian theology, Good & Evil are
not relativistic concepts. THEY ARE ABSOLUTES. What is of God & according
to His will is Good, by *definition* & *axiomatically*. Everything else is
simply distancing oneself from your Creator, ergo Evil! And more evil has
come from presuming to know & execute God's will through the Ages then from
most other things combined! A humble man would never presume to tell others
(certainly not in a flippant or self-righteous manner) what is right & what
is wrong, according to God's will. It's hard enough for us to hear His will
for ourselves, amidst the background noise of Western Civilization & life,
that we should think we know what He wants for others. Very arrogant. You
see, the bible is NOT a book of life or a book of rules (another popular
but *completely* misguided contemporary myth); the best summary I have ever
read to describe it is "the bible is a testament to Man's failure to save
himself"...for the obvious purpose of making it clear to us that we need
Him; that he made us to have a relationship with Him; NOT to be puppets on
strings or servile chattel...or as Jesus put it "I have come that you might
have life, and have it to the fullest".
>aware of others practicing it hysterical. If making some people hysterical was
>considered harming those people, then just about everything would "harm" someone
>and thus it clearly would be an illogical and unworkable standard. I believe
>that acts harming other people are the only real sins. To me, those people who
Again, this is almost like a mixed metaphor, Terry. 'Sin' is a Christian
concept. If you 'borrow' it, then it's a little cheeky to amend it to suit
yourself, no? Either you believe in God & stand by His definitions & His
will, or you're making it up all on your own as you go along. So which will
it be? Not to mention the obvious - you're trying to *define* sin & right
from wrong, for all of us, right there in that sentence above. How is that
different from the Texan's right to say homosexuality is wrong & proclaim
it publicly? As long as laws & rules are written on paper, corrupt men will
undermine & twist them to suit their own & evil's purposes. If you put the
law in men's hearts, then nothing can undermine them. And so we come to the
Holy Spirit & where he reckons in the scheme of things...but that's another
long story & had been better documented by others :-).
>torment or attempt to persecute homosexuals by legislation against them are the
>real sinners, not the homosexuals. Wayne, I am not accusing you of this. These
>are just my thoughts on this way-off-topic subject.
For the record, the bible only usually mentions homosexuality in a cultural
context. Not all things are blanket rules for all mankind. Sodom &
Gomorrah, for example, had a helluva lot more evil things going on then
just 'men having unnatural relations with other men', that God decided to
obliterate them. Jesus never directly said anything about this topic. Smart
man, really :-).
And for the record, I am a Christian (you guessed it, right?), I'm not
homosexual (not the last time I checked, anyways), though at least one of
my very dear friends (that I know of :-) is...
--
To reply via e-mail *when solicited* and given *express permission* to do so, please replace 'spamfree' with 'labyrinth'
James Dusek
au...@nospam.mindspring.com says...
> Your membership in the "International Single-Digit I.Q. Club" has been
> approved. In fact, you've already been nominated for "Grand Pubah".
> Congratulations.... For your initiation, all you have to do is lynch a
> homosexual and tie him to the back of your pickup truck then drag him until
> he's dead. Isn't that what people like you do for fun on a Saturday night, or
> is that just the white supremacists?
Congrats Krud, you just earned your membership into the
"International Single-Digit I.Q. Club". While one certaintly doesn't have
to agree with Wayne's post, you went the extra mile and really aggervated
the situation. Unless you have proof that Wayne has violent tendenicies
and has committed hate crimes you owe him an apology.
Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, deal with it Krud. If
you don't like what he's saying, don't read his posts.
James Dusek
Rep...@partof.therightwingconspirancy
entitled to his opinion. You have no right to slam him for not agreeing
with Dan/Dani's activities.
Chill people--you are all starting to look like a bunch of Clinton Nazis!
Your intolerance is showing....
By the way, he/she/it did make some good games....
Terry A. McKelvey
Nostromo wrote:
> Damn! And normally Agent is so good at filtering out these off-topic
> 'psuedo-religious/theological' discussions, but this one slipped through,
> so now I just can't resist - if I have to read it, then so are you going to
> have to! :-)...
>
> >If homosexuality is wrong, then God must be doing "wrong" things because it is
> >absolutely clear from the scientific literature that homosexuality is determined
> >mostly from conditions that occur prior to birth, i.e. genetics and pre-birth
> >environment (such as exposure to maternal hormones). No human has any real
>
> I'll take you're word for it Terry...though I haven't studied the genetic
> pre-dispositions of homosexuality in any great detail.
I do read the scientific literature in the biological sciences as a part of my job and I take the time to read a few
interesting, non-job-related papers that I stumble over in the general literature such as the journals Science or Nature,
such as those that concern biological determinants of behavior, a topic that has interested me even before going to graduate
school.
> >control over those conditions, least of all the developing fetus! Therefore,
> >that process for everyone, including homosexuals, can only be in the hands of
> >God. So, logically, it appears that God makes homosexuals.
>
> As well as people with cerebral palsy, Parkinson's disease & 300,000 other
> congential/chronic conditions, Terry. But we could blame God for
> everything, couldn't we? So long as we're unhappy with the design of the
> Universe and all of Creation or our own lives, let's not change our
> attitude, let's blame God instead. Convenient, isn't it, to have a God we
> only believe in when we want something, or want someone to blame? If you're
> going to argue Theology in a Judeo/Chrisitan framework, at least make sure
> you have all of HIS facts straight. As far as Man's condition goes, the
> bible quite clearly 'blames' it on the Original Sin (which we all inherit
> and *perpetuate by Free Choice*), & our fall from Grace henceforth. So, the
> bible is quite unambiguous about this - we only have ourselves to blame, if
> blame we must...like the apples do far? :-)
There are many people who believe in a very interventionist god who would say that God is responsible for various problems
in our lives and it is our burden to cope with them. This is not my belief, however. My main point is that people cannot
make themselves into homosexuals. Only God, if anyone, has that power. I should have concluded the earlier statement with
"So, logically, if anyone makes a person homosexual, it is God." That is what I really meant.
> >You could argue that God does not want homosexuals to act on their nature, but
> >that would mean that God is particularly cruel and vindictive, making a person
> >have a different sexuality and expecting that person to go through life not
> >enjoying that sexuality while others that are made heterosexuals can enjoy their
> >sexuality. I believe that if there is a god, then He is a loving and
>
> You use a powerful word like *believe*, and then follow it immediately by a
> conditional 'if'??? Not a good way to bring home a confident argument...
> And I'm sure there's a lot of pedophiles out there arguing the "I was only
> acting on my nature, your Honor" line...so where are we now?
The rest of the posting is merely my beliefs concerning the issue, which are not Christian and I do not profess that they
are Christian. I have my doubts as to the existence of God, hence the "if". But if God exists, I believe that he has a
certain nature different from what you or many other Christians believe. The pedophile argument is a poor one because
pedophiles acting on their nature do harm others, children. They are sinners (when they act out their sexuality with
children) by my belief.
I was not arguing Christian theology, but professing my non-Christian beliefs. To me, avoiding harm against others is the
most important thing. Thus I define sin as causing harm against others. I like some aspects of Christ's teachings, e.g.
"the warm and fuzzy parts", but if I thought about it further I could probably come up with parts of his message I reject.
Thus, I am not a Christian, but I borrow some of the finer aspects of Christianity (in my opinion) for my personal
theology. However, no one alive truly knows the nature of God.
You are right, the Bible does portray a vengeful god early on, only going to a warm and fuzzy god later on. To me, that is
evidence of the Bible being less than divinely inspired. Simply stated, this difference in the portrayal of God over time
is, I believe, the result in a change in the way people viewed God over time. This changing viewpoint is then reflected in
the writings that make up the Bible.
> >aware of others practicing it hysterical. If making some people hysterical was
> >considered harming those people, then just about everything would "harm" someone
> >and thus it clearly would be an illogical and unworkable standard. I believe
> >that acts harming other people are the only real sins. To me, those people who
>
> Again, this is almost like a mixed metaphor, Terry. 'Sin' is a Christian
> concept. If you 'borrow' it, then it's a little cheeky to amend it to suit
> yourself, no? Either you believe in God & stand by His definitions & His
> will, or you're making it up all on your own as you go along. So which will
> it be? Not to mention the obvious - you're trying to *define* sin & right
> from wrong, for all of us, right there in that sentence above. How is that
> different from the Texan's right to say homosexuality is wrong & proclaim
> it publicly? As long as laws & rules are written on paper, corrupt men will
> undermine & twist them to suit their own & evil's purposes. If you put the
> law in men's hearts, then nothing can undermine them. And so we come to the
> Holy Spirit & where he reckons in the scheme of things...but that's another
> long story & had been better documented by others :-).
I reserve the right to define my theology in whatever means suites me, including using the word "sin" which I then define.
Read my post again. I liberally use "I believe" and "I think" throughout most of it. I am simply stating my non-Christian
beliefs, just like others like Wayne who have stated their Christian beliefs. I didn't state that Wayne shouldn't have his
beliefs and proclaim them publically. I VERY much believe in free speech. The Internet is a great forum to exercise free
speech rights. (Although this topic should be in a different newsgroup. But I thought, what the heck?, after all of the
off-topic DS Ph.D., etc threads, this thread is a refreshing change.) I simply disagree with Wayne and others like him. I
believe (conditionally) in a god that has a different definition of sin from what you describe as God's (i.e. the
Christian's God) definition of sin (as interpreted by you and many/most? Christians). Truth be told, there is little real
evidence of any sort of God who interacts with man, in the universe. But that is better explained by others ... :).
> >torment or attempt to persecute homosexuals by legislation against them are the
> >real sinners, not the homosexuals. Wayne, I am not accusing you of this. These
> >are just my thoughts on this way-off-topic subject.
>
> For the record, the bible only usually mentions homosexuality in a cultural
> context. Not all things are blanket rules for all mankind. Sodom &
> Gomorrah, for example, had a helluva lot more evil things going on then
> just 'men having unnatural relations with other men', that God decided to
> obliterate them. Jesus never directly said anything about this topic. Smart
> man, really :-).
On this, we agree.
> And for the record, I am a Christian (you guessed it, right?), I'm not
> homosexual (not the last time I checked, anyways), though at least one of
> my very dear friends (that I know of :-) is...
And for the record, I am a married heterosexual who was raised as a Catholic (which, despite the belief of some, does
qualify as Christian!). However, I was also trained as a scientist, taught to question everything and to apply reason to
the best of my ability in deciding the answers to all questions. Thus, I developed my own, non-Christian beliefs concerning
God over time. I think that they are just as legitimate as the "canned version" set forth by any organised religion.
I am going to try not to post any more on this way-off topic subject. But, who knows, I might not be able to resist the
urge to respond further, depending on what other responses I read :). It was a fun topic as a diversion from the endless
complaints about buggy and poorly designed strategy games. But, back to the games!
I hope you have a nice day.
Terry
Ken Mechail
>
>It also says plain as day in the bible that pi = 3, but the next time
>I build a bridge I don't think I'll let moses do the calculations for me.
>
Ok, this I gotta see. WHERE in the bible does it say that pi=3?
Ken
Mike Scott
> In article <199807100248...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, amyh8...@aol.com (AmyH832541) writes:
> > Amy is my wife and the account is in her name. The ability to tell wrong from
> > right
> > is built in all of us. We all know that to kill
> > somebody is wrong even if nobody tells
> > us so. That is the way I feel about homosexuality. It says it plan as day in
> > the
> > Bible that it is a sin. Maybe all of us true
> > Texans were brought up right and the rest of
> > yall were not, but that does not surprise
> > me. These are just my thoughts. No offense
> > intended.
>
> offense taken.
>
Oh no! Someone in this world is offended! Oh my gosh.. What will we do!?
I think this means we need more legislation, acts of congress, pass laws
so no one can be offended.. (cheek in tongue)
You offend me, I offend you. Its called difference of opinions and life.
Too bad really isnt it?
Mike
Jonathan K.
> I just don't believe that
>we should accept this lifestyle as normal or
>correct.
You don't have to. So long as you don't interfere with gay people's
civil rights, you can wallow in your prejudices to your heart's
content.
>The gay community is trying to
>pass laws to teach this lifestyle in our schools.
>I don't want somebody to tell my 7 year old
>daughter that it is ok to be a lesbo.
Whether they tell her that or not, she'll be what she is. In any
event, explain 'teach this lifestyle'. Do you mean teach them that it
exists, teach them techniques, or teach them that it is the preferred
one? Or are you simply annoyed that any school sexual education course
would acknowledge the fact that there are gay people without putting
in a word for your 'morals'?
>I'm
>sorry if I stepped on some of yalls
>sensibilitys but these are my thoughts
Nice timing, while many of us are regretting the demise of the author
of a game that is still loved today. You mind if people show up at
your Christian friends' funerals and talk about how preposterous their
belief was?
>I would be willing to bet that most people
>feel the same as do. Sometimes it's not good to be politicaly correct.
Ah, blame it on PC. Why not blame it on El Nino while you're at it?
Some places you'd win your bet. Others, where people read more
extensively than _People_ magazine, you'd lose it.
--
Jonathan K.
Krud
>
> Congrats Krud, you just earned your membership into the
>"International Single-Digit I.Q. Club". While one certaintly doesn't have
>to agree with Wayne's post, you went the extra mile and really aggervated
>the situation. Unless you have proof that Wayne has violent tendenicies
>and has committed hate crimes you owe him an apology.
Yeah, I guess you're right. What can I say, hate breeds more hate. He hates
gays and I hate people who hate gays. But I did go a little overboard. Sorry
Wayne.
-Krud
Roger Christie
Sorry, I don't believe that pointing out bigotry and hatred is
being a nazi, and I reserve the right to continue to do it.
As you say, I'm entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that
Nsensitive is a bigoted jerk.
ReluctantMessiah
James Dusek <du...@cadsun.corp.mot.com> wrote:
>
> Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, deal with it Krud. If
>you don't like what he's saying, don't read his posts.
Doesn't this statement seem just a *bit* ironic?
-jc
--
-----
Note: email to my account is automatically deleted because I got tired of
manually deleting all the spam I receive. All spammers must die.
NOSPAM...@suba.com
amyh8...@aol.com (AmyH832541) wrote:
> Amy is my wife and the account is in her name. The ability to tell wrong from
> right
> is built in all of us. We all know that to kill
> somebody is wrong even if nobody tells
> us so. That is the way I feel about homosexuality. It says it plan as day in
> the
> Bible that it is a sin. Maybe all of us true
> Texans were brought up right and the rest of
> yall were not, but that does not surprise
> me. These are just my thoughts. No offense
> intended.
>
> Wayne
Anyone ever read the "good news bible" ? Its a laugh riot... It's written in "plain" english,
and contains such gems as "Don't be gay, God hates that..." Really, I'm not kidding.
And we *all* know killing is wrong? Aside from the fact that there are lots and lots of murders,
I'd say most of us know that killing, in general, is wrong, but that in specific circumstances
its not a bad thing at all. Further, um, hasn't more killing been done in the name of good ole
"Thou shalt not kill" xtianity than for virtually *any* other reason? I seem to be remembering
something called the crusades, spanish inquisition, etc.
And last, "true" Texans?! How does geography have anything to do with this? My family
is from Texas, and I assure you, all of us, every last one, is quite immoral and just plain
wierd, giving lie to the "brought up right" theory. Maybe Okies were all brought up
right, but not Texans. I'm sure of it.
Or, for anyone who takes this post seriously,
NOSPAM...@suba.com
amyh8...@aol.com (AmyH832541) wrote:
> I agree that this thread is way off topic and I
> will not reply anymore. I am not against
> homosexuality or transsexuals and I am sorry
> to see Dani pass. I just don't believe that
> we should accept this lifestyle as normal or
> correct.
You are absolutely correct! What would happen if we *did* accept homosexuality as "normal"?
We might have to accept blacks, foreigners, jews, muslims, hindus, hispanics, asians and
other non-white non-christians as normal and acceptable! And we know what would happen then
don't we? The complete collapse of civilization as we know it!
> The gay community is trying to
> pass laws to teach this lifestyle in our schools.
There is legislation out there that would require schools to teach children to be gay?!?
If that were so, I'd be totally against it (just as I would be against legislation that would require
teaching children to be christian, jewish, etc). I think you mean that the gay community is
trying to pass laws that would require schools to try and teach the same tolerance for diversity
that is taught regarding other minorities. You know, the whole civil rights thing?
> I don't want somebody to tell my 7 year old
> daughter that it is ok to be a lesbo.
I'm sure you don't! I bet you'd much rather have your daughter go through anguish and self-
hatred and possibly commit suicide because everyone she knows and loves has taught her
that she's an abomination. I, for one, would much rather raise my kids to believe that, unless
they conform exactly to the tenets of some arbitrary belief system that they are worthless.
Seriously, though, what *WOULD* you do if your daughter discovered she was gay?
> I'm
> sorry if I stepped on some of yalls
> sensibilitys but these are my thoughts
> I would be willing to bet that most people
> feel the same as do. Sometimes it's not good to be politicaly correct.
No one ever said most people are right, either. Most people, back in the early to mid 1800's
thought blacks were barely human and it was *right* to enslave them. And most people
at the beginning of our own enlightened 20th century believed that women didn't have the
mental ability to vote. Hell, look at television, most people believed that "Full House" deserved
to be kept on for 8 years or so! That alone proves most people aint all that bright.
P.S. Um, pardon a rather odd question, but... If you aren't having sex with homosexuals,
what, exactly, is your interest in their sexual preference? Should it really matter to you? Is
there some sort of horrible thing that will happen if two guys in Iowa start getting it on?
> Wayne
NOSPAM...@suba.com
>>If homosexuality is wrong, then God must be doing "wrong" things because it is
>>absolutely clear from the scientific literature that homosexuality is determined
>>mostly from conditions that occur prior to birth, i.e. genetics and pre-birth
>>environment (such as exposure to maternal hormones). No human has any real
Quick comment: Does it really matter if sexual preference (either hetero, homo, or bi)
is a choice or a genetically/biologically determined trait?
Skin color is biologically determined, and it's illegal to discriminate based on skin color.
Religion is a choice, and it's illegal to discriminate based on religion. Ergo...
Descrimination is a Bad Thing, regardless of whether the thing discriminated against is a
choice or a biological condition. Sounds fair to me.
Sorry about my heat in replying to this stuff... Guess the bait for me is when people get
all bothered about something that isn't their business anyway. I mean, why should I care
if someone is gay or straight? If I'm not having sex with them, it dosen't matter, no? And,
isn't getting on someone's ass for having a different sexual preference than yours kinda, well,
silly?
Also, sorry for the slipshod editing here, but...
> For the record, the bible only usually mentions homosexuality in a cultural
> context. Not all things are blanket rules for all mankind. Sodom &
> Gomorrah, for example, had a helluva lot more evil things going on then
> just 'men having unnatural relations with other men', that God decided to
> obliterate them. Jesus never directly said anything about this topic. Smart
> man, really :-).
> And for the record, I am a Christian (you guessed it, right?), I'm not
> homosexual (not the last time I checked, anyways), though at least one of
> my very dear friends (that I know of :-) is...
Yah, in S&G, if I recall correctly, the "Hero" of the story basically casts his children out to
an horde of crazed folks to save his own ass. Sounds like a basically screwed up situation
to me. I'm a non-theist. Not quite an atheist (who believes there is no god) or an agnostic
(who isn't sure) I personally couldn't care if there is one or not, and I don't know one way or
the other, I just don't get into religion.
AmyH832541
Personnal
attacks have never bothered me. I don't
believe I ever said I hated anybody and I dont. My remarks sounded as If I do
thou
and for that I apologize.
Krud is right about one thing thou., I do own
a pickup. Kisses to all.
Wayne
Stuart L. Dollar
wrote:
>You offend me, I offend you. Its called difference of opinions and life.
>Too bad really isnt it?
So be it. Biggest problem is this guy throws down the gauntlet, then
says "no offense intended." It isn't sincere. It's meant to offend.
By saying it, all he is being hypocritical. If he hadn't meant to
offend, he wouldn't have written it.
Stu
Stuart L. Dollar
"Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God." -Thomas Jefferson
Just remove the NoSpAmM to reply!
Stuart L. Dollar
>Bible that it is a sin. Maybe all of us true
>Texans were brought up right and the rest of
>yall were not, but that does not surprise
>me. These are just my thoughts. No offense
>intended.
Exactly what the hell was intended, Wayne/Amy/Tex?
You question our senses of morality, and then throw a bullsh** little
phrase on the end of the sentence.
AmyH832541
wipe out the human race.
Thats why it is wrong.
Thats why Iam against it.
Quite simple really.
Wayne
Terry A. McKelvey
NOSPAM...@suba.com wrote:
Sam
Great reply! What you posted was exactly what I was thinking (but much better written than I could
have). I am concerned about the very high suicide rate among teenagers who are gay or confused about
their sexuality. I think it is directly attributable to the anti-homosexual bigotry present in society.
It is just another measure of harm those bigots cause. And to me, that is the real sin.
Terry
Krud
<199807102038...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
> Krud is right about one thing thou., I do own
>a pickup. Kisses to all.
Is that the official Texas State vehicle or something?
-Krud
Terry A. McKelvey
AmyH832541 wrote:
I wasn't going to continue posting on this thread, but your posting was
just too provacative. The reason why we don't all become gay is because
most of us aren't gay. Those of us who aren't gay are more than
adequately replenishing the human race. The population of Earth will
reach 12 billion in my lifetime, greatly straining natural resources and
leading to alot more natural habitat destruction. If anything, it would
be better if there were more non-reproducing humans in the world to
reduce population growth so that there would be a little more habitat
for wild animals and plants. I fear that we will end up with very few
wild spaces by the end of the next century with disastrous results to
the health of the ecosphere and ultimately human health.
Also, by the way, gay singles or couples can have children by adoption,
artificial or natural insemination (for lesbians) or surrogate
parenthood (which would work for either gay men or lesbians). I don't
know how many choose one of those methods, but I am sure some gay people
do.
People who are homosexual simply have no choice in the feelings they
have just as heterosexuals have no choice but to be attracted to a
member of the opposite sex. Did you choose to be a heterosexual? I
sure didn't, but I am heterosexual.
Ask yourself this, if your daughter (or son) was a homosexual, would you
love her less? Would you want her to suppress her sexual feelings and
lead a celibate life alone without the possibility of the comfort and
companionship of a mate that loves her? Would you want her to be
exposed to hatred and discrimination for the rest of her life? Would
you want her to internalize that hatred, believe that she sins just by
existing, and think that maybe even God despises her? If you answer no
to these questions then I say to you that the same should apply to other
people's children, i.e., to all homosexuals.
If I end up before God and have to justify my actions and beliefs, I
will proudly defend my beliefs concerning homosexuality. If it comes
between choosing a belief or action that avoids harm to others and a
belief or action that does harm others, but has a religious
justification (e.g. the clergy of some religion says to believe or act
in that harmful way, based upon some teachings of an ancient "holy book"
which is open to many different interpretations and errors in
transcription or translation through the centuries), I will always act
against those teachings, choosing not to cause harm. My conscience
tells me that is the correct path to take.
Terry
Terry A. McKelvey
Terry A. McKelvey wrote:
> AmyH832541 wrote:
>
> > Why dont we all become gay and completely
> > wipe out the human race.
> > Thats why it is wrong.
> > Thats why Iam against it.
> > Quite simple really.
> >
> > Wayne
Ooops, maybe I misinterpreted this posting. If you mean that by becoming
gay we will wipe out the human race through HIV infection, I have news for
you. Heterosexual transmission of HIV is a fact and, in Africa which by far
has the largest percentage of HIV infected people, heterosexual transmission
is the predominant mode of transmission. So I guess you should be against
heterosexuality too.
Terry
ferra...@yahoo.com
(Paul Dugenske) wrote:
>OK, I'll try again.
>
>Quoting Dani Berry:
>
>Imaginary Playmates in Real-time or Why Online Games Suck
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>A Lecture for the 1997 Computer Game Developers Conference, Copyright
>1997,
>by Dani Bunten Berry
>
>I started out my career as speaker at this conference by delivering
>the
>banquet keynote address in 1990. I told everyone that if we want to
>reach
>the mass market in this industry we're going to have to become part of
>the
>main stream and stop being such nerds. I recommended that they go
>home,
>meet their neighbors, get married, have kids and to stop spending all
>their
>time alone in front of computers. I said something pompous like "Only
>when
>our products come out of a deep connection with real-life will they
>resonate with the mass market". I think that was when I coined the
>morbid
>quote that "No one on their death bed ever says 'I wish I'd spent more
>time
>alone with my computer'" to highlight the "people orientation" of the
>real
>world vs. the "thing orientation" of our business. Not mentioned in my
>bio
>is the fact that 4 years ago I changed pronouns. I tell you this
>partly so
>that those of you who "know" don't feel any anxiety about telling or
>not
>telling those of you who don't since I hate that kind of awkwardness.
>But a
>sex change also offered me enough humbling experiences to make me less
>willing to pontificate about what other people need to do. I switched
>instead to just sharing my insights on specific game areas. I've done
>round-tables and seminars on various aspects of designing and
>developing
>games. However, I've loved the big lectures given by my friends Chris
>Crawford, Brian Moriarty and a few others that eviscerate our
>industry,
>cajole us to think differently and galvanize us to try harder. For
>myself,
>I haven't felt driven enough by my beliefs, sure enough of my
>experience
>nor confident enough in my ability to climb back into that pulpit
>again --
>till now.
>
>What kicked me into motion was a conversation with a "marketing
>specialist"
>at a recent online game conference. He said something innocently
>grandiose
>about how great it is that the online service he worked for has got
>the
>full gamut of games to cover all possible demographic groups. In his
>view,
>as new products come up all he'll have to do is drop it in one of his
>genre
>slots and connect the dots between who's out there (audience) and the
>what
>they can play (content). I was dumbstruck. It's true that they had
>things
>from card games through "Warcraft" to "Doom" that featured different
>levels
>of intensity and abstraction. However, from my point of view all those
>games were holdovers from the pre-online era. I believed we had barely
>tapped the virgin territory of a whole new medium. Here was a 20
>something
>whiz kid telling me it was all over but to stock those cyber-shelves
>and
>rake in the cash. Once I recognized this "new" point of view of his, I
>started seeing it in a lot of other places. Like the lack of desire by
>publishers and capitalists to underwrite even small experimental
>products.
>All they wanted to talk about were the fully fledged, competitively
>executed products that looked a lot like what was selling in the PC CD
>market. They were more willing to spend a million bucks on a "C&C"
>clone
>than under $100K on a promising concept for an original product. As
>the
>self-appointed life-long defender of people-oriented games in this
>business
>I had to speak up to save this potential new medium from being turned
>into
>another silicon valley meets Hollywood "sequel-itis" wasteland.
>
>So that's why I'm motivated to preach. But am I qualified? In these
>days
>where spending six months with an internet service provider is enough
>to
>proclaim yourself an expert in the online world, it's a good question.
>I've
>done more original multi-player games than anybody else in the games
>business and the one thing we're sure about online games is that they
>will
>be multi-player. Of the dozen games that I've had published by
>Strategic
>Simulations, Electronic Arts and Microprose, 10 were multi-player. The
>first 7 of them used shared or simultaneous input (depending on the
>platform) and shared output. (In other words players were grouped
>around a
>computer with their own joysticks when possible or passing it when
>not).
>There were (and still are) numerous possibilities for social
>interaction
>and interesting play with the shared computer kind of design. However,
>there were a number of logistical issues related to getting groups of
>people playing games around a single computer (such as, it's not
>usually
>centrally located and people need to be "invited"). Online games "fix"
>these problems while still offering several of the social advantages
>of
>multi-player games. Thus, as soon as possible I switched to writing
>online
>games and my last 3 were of the type that each player had their own
>machine
>connected by modems. (Specifically, they were server-less,
>synchronous-state, real-time action-strategy games where all the code
>ran
>on the client machines). I did the first point-to-point game and the
>first
>four player network games published by major publishers. The last
>several
>years I've been a design consultant specializing in multi-player
>online
>games.
>
>There are my motivations and my qualifications to speak. How about my
>confidence to deliver this tirade? On that I'm too stubborn not to
>try.
>
>We're going to attempt to uncover why online games suck and what to do
>about it. First, I should share the good news about online games. A
>lot of
>people are having a lot of fun playing the online games they are being
>offered. "Quake", "Warcraft", "C&C", "Diablo" and their clones are
>doing an
>amazing job of convincing people that the age of online multi-player
>games
>is upon us. A whole sub-industry is being developed to bring more
>folks
>into that realm and to make money off them. Compared to this time last
>year, we now know that tens of thousands of people are willing to sign
>up
>and pay some amount just to play games online. Although, we still
>don't
>know the ideal system for financing online play we at least have some
>notions about mixing ads and box-office to fund the system.
>
>What I mean in my title, "Imaginary Playmates in Real-time", is that
>for
>nearly all intents and purposes the current crop of games (and even
>the
>next crop that I'm aware of) have simply taken standard computer game
>genres from the pre-online era and replaced the AI opponents with
>humans.
>If you're playing one of those games, your interaction with those
>humans is
>at the same level as it was with the AI ones. What we're experiencing
>now
>is just the fact that people make better opponents. They will do more
>interesting things than any algorithm. Those of us who have been
>pushing
>multi-player games for years have known this part. It's just that this
>is
>such a tiny aspect of what having human playmates can mean. People can
>make
>you feel welcome and accepted. People can teach you and share with
>you.
>They can touch you emotionally. But in the current online games they
>are
>nothing but a few pixels on the screen and an occasional stream of
>text.
>So, I guess what I'm saying is that online games suck in comparison to
>what
>they can become. So, it appears I was exaggerating in my sub-title "or
>Why
>Online Games Suck". Guilty as charged. But, I got you here and paying
>attention and I promise to give you some suggestions on how we can
>create
>an online games medium that will make what's happening now look
>"sucky" by
>comparison.
>
>The Distribution Monster
>
>Let me start by describing some of the institutional and structural
>problems of how computer games are currently being designed and built
>that
>we need to overcome in order to bring this new medium to life. The
>biggest
>and most threatening monster in our path is the distribution system
>that
>garners almost 80% of the revenue stream of games for virtually no
>value
>added. That's pretty harsh isn't it?!
>
>What we have now is a multi-billion dollar computer game business.
>Lets
>look at where that money moves. Most of the accumulation of wealth
>occurs
>as a result of the sales and distribution of our designs. Retailers,
>who
>display our games to their audience, take the lions share of the
>revenue
>stream - between 50% and 60%. For this they present the edges of boxes
>on
>shelves under labels they consider descriptive. At this particular
>point in
>time those labels are thematic more often than not. You'll find our
>games
>categorized under Science Fiction, Sports, War, etc. Under these
>titles you
>will find everything mixed together. I've even seen "Command and
>Conquer",
>"Duke Nukem" and "Myst" under Science Fiction for God's sake! How do
>retailers not know that our audience fall into categories by whether
>they
>like strategy, action or adventure games not whether it deals with the
>future? I can't imagine how players find games they are likely to
>enjoy
>these days.
>
>The next big player in terms of accumulation of wealth in our industry
>are
>the publisher/distributors. They take 35% to 40% of the pie. For this
>they
>put our software on CD's, put them in boxes and ship them to
>retailers.
>This is not to say they don't make a creative contribution. They turn
>their
>marketing gurus loose to invent the packaging that makes our games
>sound
>like something they want to sell. (Not that they constrain themselves
>to
>describing the actual game they are putting in the box.) The backs of
>boxes
>seem to be designed to make it harder rather than easier to figure out
>what
>the game is about or how it really plays. It's goal is to get that box
>off
>the shelf and whatever it takes to do that seems fine to the
>publisher.
>There are also the full-page, content-free ads that the marketing
>folks
>invent as another of the publisher's offerings to the success of our
>products. But by far the main contribution of the publishers is their
>input
>into our design process. They help us follow the lead of the last big
>seller. Without their help we might flounder around and make something
>original.
>
>Thus, about 80% of the money goes to people who make their "votes"
>based on
>those superficial things that make the "sizzle" but not the
>"substance".
>Now, I don't want to imply that cool animated cut-scenes and appealing
>segues are not nice things to have in a product. They can help players
>get
>into the story-line and enjoy the rest of the product. It's just that
>in
>too many cases products are getting sold just for their icing
>regardless of
>whether there is cake underneath it or not. (A friend described that
>as "A
>big hole where the fun should be"). And I would contend it's the
>screwy
>distribution system that not only allows it but encourages it. In
>additions, corporate buyers, like all "market analysts" only know what
>sold
>last quarter and that's what they base their decisions on for this
>quarter.
>Hence, the chute is greased for sequels and "me too" games. Add to all
>this
>the data point that most computer software is bought when a computer
>is
>first purchased. I've heard numbers that say 80% of all software is
>sold to
>new users within a month of buying their computer. What that means is
>that
>sellers don't even have to worry about delivering trash and pissing
>off
>their buyers. They're not coming back and will be replaced by the next
>sucker in line anyway! A final new trend is that very few retailers
>will
>let you exchange anything but defective software in a "like for like"
>swap
>these days. I think you can see how the system has nailed the coffin
>shut
>on innovation. It has ensured both the continued success of "sizzle"
>and
>the fact that most "steak" is tough if not rank.
>
>OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit. But none of these aspects of the
>current
>system favor success in the new online medium we would like to
>envision.
>The shelf-space online will be unlimited and deception will be
>punished by
>players not returning to your site. Originality will be required but
>"publishing" is unnecessary. Although sizzle won't hurt, substance in
>the
>form of addictive playability over time is essential. Instead of
>software
>that is primarily sold to new owners, the online environment will be
>peopled by savvy consumers who are wired into their own interest
>groups.
>Revenue accumulation with almost all expected financial models rewards
>repeat customers in the online world more than initial sales.
>
>The Solo Trap
>
>I'm aware of only one "multi-player only" game that was published by a
>major publisher - my own Robot Rascals by Electronic Arts. There's a
>reason. Solo sells. Or at least it has until now. All our metaphors,
>imagery and concepts as designers have gone to support the single
>player
>game as the prime feature of our products with multi-player as an
>occasional option. Solo games have a whole different style. Solo-games
>could concentrate on entertaining just one user so all the resources
>of the
>machine could be devoted to that end.
>
>Brilliant graphics and sounds could be used to set the scene for
>players
>making their experience more compelling. Segues and cut-scenes are
>triggered as appropriate to that audience of one. No provision needed
>to be
>made as to what the other players would be doing while the awards
>ceremony
>visuals were running. Pandering to the only player didn't create any
>tension with the others who might not be doing as well. In solo-games
>they
>were all AI stand-ins who would mindlessly wait while you gorged on
>eye
>candy. And the pandering didn't stop with their ego's either, solo
>games
>needed to push the platform too since one of the biggest perks for
>many
>hard-core players was showing off their hardware.
>
>The features of a solo-player's game are geared to take advantage of
>the
>"learning curve" involved in the process of mastering a new game and
>its
>environment. There can be whole groups of features that only show up
>in
>certain environments as the player advances and learns to play.
>Players of
>those designs not only accepted the idea that more was better, they
>demanded complexity for it's own sake or else they thought they were
>being
>cheated.
>
>"Kitchen sink" design also has an advantage to solo-player games
>besides
>the titillation of the player. Designers could hide the limitations of
>the
>AI opponent behind the veil of added game elements that kept
>challenging
>the player when his opponent couldn't. Another aspect of the AI also
>influenced solo-game design. Although subtle nuances of pattern
>recognition
>might be trivial for a human player, the most blatant patterns could
>be a
>nightmare for AI. Hence, there's a tendency to make the externals of
>solo-games very conventional. Designers discard opportunities for
>interactions with audio-visual cues in favor of algorithmic and
>concrete
>presentations. Rather than allude to something with subtle patterns or
>sounds that humans excel at, designers used the same kind of logic in
>their
>representations as they used in their artificial opponent's analysis
>of the
>world. There aren't "maybes". There are only "zeros" and "ones". In
>addition, the need for competent AI required that the internal models
>be
>computational which computers "love" rather than heuristic which
>humans
>enjoy.
>
>Taken together these design elements may make good solo games but they
>conspire to make games that are poorly suited to humans playing with
>humans. Rather than "over the top" production values, online games
>will
>reward small downloads, good multi-player balance and smooth play
>experiences. These will preclude pauses for "cut-scenes" and pandering
>to a
>single player's ego or hardware vanity. Since people derive much of
>their
>challenge while playing with each other from anticipating each other's
>actions, complex feature sets are unnecessary. Simple sets of rules,
>consistent over time make multi-player games more accessible. However,
>subtle nuances in audio/visual presentation of products make for much
>richer play experiences for human opponents. And, finally, heuristic
>(rules
>of thumb based) models are much more appealing to players than complex
>numeric systems and once again play to the strengths of our brains
>while
>not sacrificing playability.
>
>Those are the two biggest obstacles to be overcome in order to bring
>online
>games up to their potential. Both are very daunting and will probably
>keep
>a lot of good talent from coming to this area or being effective here.
>It's
>even possible that the distribution monster will attempt to sabotage
>this
>medium to protect its turf. Just the simple fact that their financial
>model
>sells the CD but gives away the "play time" makes "pay as you play"
>and
>"advertiser supported play" less appealing. However, I believe once we
>have
>some content designed specifically for online multi-player play, it
>will be
>no contest which kind of product people want to play. The concept of
>continuing to tack the online option to basically solo CD games will
>look
>pitiful by comparison. Even if the online media creators have to move
>to
>some kind of sales of their software, without middlemen, manufacturing
>and
>shipping we could be pretty darn competitive. I used to tell folks who
>bought my games that by the time EA got done with it all, I only got
>about
>$2 a copy so if they ever wanted to clear their conscience for
>pirating
>"M.U.L.E." they could just send the $2 straight to me. The shareware
>distribution folks seem to make much better than that per copy.
>
>Small Creative Shops
>
>One of my favorite game designers is Sid Meier. When I met him in '89
>and
>was going to do a new game for Microprose I told him I was torn
>between
>doing one of two games. They were both board games whose design while
>solid
>in their own medium would be very interesting to work out in the
>computer
>game field. I wanted to do either "Axis and Allies" or "Civilization".
>Sid
>talked me into doing the WWII game (Command HQ it was called) and he
>did
>Civilization. Not that I would have done the amazing job that Sid did
>with
>that game but it does give one pause to consider the ways fate works
>out.
>Well, anyway, Sid just did a "Soapbox" piece for the magazine "Game
>Developer" where he applauded the current situation that is allowing
>small
>creative shops to take a prominent place in the design of innovative
>products. I assume he's alluding to groups like Blizzard, Westwood, ID
>and
>his own Firaxis and to a certain degree I agree with him. To whatever
>extent the big boys (EA et al) will farm out money to these groups to
>do
>original stuff, it is more likely to succeed than trying to push a new
>idea
>through their in-house development system. However, the budgets (and
>hence
>the resources) that are required to build products for the CD market
>are so
>large that risk must be reduced and thus wild impulses constrained.
>
>I think a much better case can be made that small creative shops will
>be
>the province of the new online medium where so much is unknown about
>what
>will work and hunches, instincts and wild impulses can and must be
>followed. The budgets need not be the astronomical numbers ($1million
>plus)
>that are talked about for CD products. Online games need to be small
>(under
>10 meg) so the download won't be prohibitive. Since they are
>multi-player
>they need to be simple to play, without complex expanding features
>that
>make testing and debugging a nightmare during development. There's no
>place
>for fancy cinematic segues and cut scenes so the art requirement is
>just
>what's needed to support game play. And, finally since rev's are no
>problem
>when you don't have to master a CD and ship it to several thousand
>retailers in time for the ads to hit, you can make the whole
>development
>process iterative. The game project can evolve and be financed in
>stages
>and still be productive. Taken together, I think these items create a
>wonderful opportunity for innovative products financed inventively. To
>me,
>it's a situation very much reminiscent of when Trip Hawkins was
>founding
>Electronic Arts. He approached several game designers (including
>myself) in
>the early '80's to empower us to do the creative things that he
>believed
>the new medium (at that time floppy-based-games) could accomplish.
>(The
>"Can a computer make you cry?" ad was the hallmark of that era). A lot
>of
>neat stuff was done before the business was taken over by it's
>distribution
>system. We need another "Trip" to seed this next growth spurt. If the
>new
>"Trip" is in the audience, would he or she see me after this talk.
>Have I
>got a deal for you?!
>
>The New Whos in Whoville
>
>Another opportunity that I believe the online medium offers is a new
>demographic landscape. Although to look at the "successful" games
>online at
>this point you'd think we were stuck with the 18 to 35 year old male
>audience that populates the CD games world, it ain't so. The
>demographic of
>web-browsing (see "Online Magazine") has an average age of 33 and is
>31%
>female. They come primarily from educational and computer-related
>occupations. Almost 60% have a college degree or better. They are
>information consumers and have an average household income of $59,000
>(these two numbers make advertisers excited). They have grown 10 fold
>in
>the last year and Nick Donatello of Odyssey Research predicts online
>entertainment will exceed $1 billion in revenue by 2000. Those are
>some
>impressive numbers! Designing games to reach them will be an amazing
>challenge. We will need to think creatively about what a game is.
>Unfortunately, I have no idea what might be. I can tell you some of
>the
>pieces that make for good multi-player games but my guess is that the
>big
>breakthrough will be as like our current games as "Doom" is like
>"Pong".
>
>Good Multi-player Design Elements
>
>Here comes my annual punch list of things to consider when designing
>multi-player games updated and expanded from last year based on what
>we've
>learned:
>
> * Build in the "Norm Effect" if at all possible. This is named for
>the
> character from "Cheers" who when he enters the bar is greeted by
> everyone calling his name in unison. Pitiful old IRC chat-rooms
>can
> provide some of this effect so surely we can find some way to
>welcome
> people into our game environments.
> * "Zero sum" is bad. Games where I win and you lose are bad. Worse
>still
> is "I win and all the rest of you lose". Notwithstanding the
>current
> cultural obsession with endzone strutting by winners, losers do
>not
> enjoy themselves and if you can help take the sting out of it,
>you
> should. Alliances, cooperative play, ranked "winners" rather than
>"A
> winner" with a bunch of losers are all options.
> * Pacing needs variety. Slow periods should follow intense ones and
> forced "time-outs" can offer opportunities to socialize, catch
>your
> breath and anticipate things to come. Remember, the players no
>longer
> have a "pause key" as they did in a solo-game.
> * Strategies need "wiggle room". People have different personal
>styles
> and when playing against each other it's great to let them "do it
> their own way" rather than a single approach that all must
>follow. If
> possible you should balance the game such that a strategic
>planner for
> instance might not always beat the joystick jockey or the
>detailed
> tactical type. A game that allows for diverse people to play
>diverse
> ways is always best.
> * Legends must grow. Provide ways for players to carry their
>experiences
> with them. "Game films" are an excellent (and reasonably
> cost-effective option) in games where what's sent between the
>player's
> computers is a stream of "deltas". Saving that stream and running
>it
> back through the game engine provides an opportunity to review
>what
> happened during the game. This turns an ephemeral, fast paced
> experience into a story that can be used to "save face" if the
>player
> lost, to learn how to win or just to chronicle their
>accomplishments.
> At the very least, try to include ongoing statistics or character
> attributes outside the environment of a single game execution.
> * Court your newbies. Nothing will destroy a player's interest in
>your
> game quicker than being humiliated a few times when they are just
> trying to figure out what to do. If possible build in inducements
>for
> advanced players to help newbies in order to get something to
>advance
> further in the game environment -- like taking an "apprentice"
>might
> be the only path to "master rank". At the very least try to make
> starting as safe on player's egos as you can.
> * Allow personalization. Let players define their own icons that
>the
> others see or somehow personalize their own game space. A big
>part of
> the enjoyment of being with others is expressing yourself. A
>bunch of
> player avatars all dressed from the same menu gives me the
>creeps.
> Encourage graffiti.
> * Keep the features down. When humans play each other there's this
>"he
> thinks that I think that he thinks …" kind of mental gymnastics
>taking
> place. This is far more interesting than another unit type or
>another
> option to evaluate to almost everyone.
> * Include audio/visual subtleties. People are remarkably good at
> recognizing patterns almost subconsciously and they also find it
> rewarding. A couple of pixels blinking in the corner of the
>screen and
> a small sound effect that allude to a possibility allows a player
>to
> feel very astute when they can put it together with an outcome.
>This
> can also facilitate the personal playing style mentioned above
>since
> some folks are better at it than others.
> * Avoid numbers. Almost no one enjoys calculations. (At least no
>one
> "normal"). Humans prefer heuristic (rules of thumb) relationships
>or
> continuous equations far more. The heuristics feel good when you
> figure them out and the continuous equations can only be
>predicted
> which also seems to scratch an itch in our brains.
> * Include spectators. Leave room for "lurkers" to watch games being
> played and even to effect them in minor ways if possible. A
>design
> that includes taking turns, which makes the other players
>spectators
> for part of the time, can be interesting if what the player is
>doing
> has an effect on them, is interesting to watch and they can
>tease,
> taunt and kibitz while watching.
> * Facilitate relationships. Allow players to form clubs, clans,
>groups
> and facilitate scheduled as well impromptu meetings online. Help
> strangers mix and friends find each other.
> * Use time limits. Whenever possible design your game so it can be
> played within a fixed time limit. This will allow people to
>schedule
> their involvement. A game you can play a couple of times in an
>evening
> would be a good design goal. If you can't end the game at
>specific
> times try to at least facilitate a graceful exit opportunity such
>that
> a player quits while they are having fun and not after they're so
> exhausted they'll never come back again.
> * Include chance. Although most players hate the idea of random
>events
> that will destroy their nice safe predictable strategies, nothing
> keeps a game alive like a wrench in the works. Do not allow
>players to
> decide this issue. They don't know it but we're offering them an
> excuse for when they lose ("It was that damn random event that
>did me
> in!") and an opportunity to "beat the odds" when they win.
> * Keep the balance. Try to keep the distance between the losers and
>the
> winners small enough that the outcome is in doubt as long as
>possible.
> You can adjust random events, attrition factors or whatever.
>They'll
> thank you for keeping the games interesting even though you
>should
> probably not tell them what you're doing.
> * Include cooperation. Even in basically competitive games you can
>allow
> for alliances, collusion or at least less cutthroat behavior. In
> M.U.L.E. I used an interesting trick that would not allow a
>"Winner"
> unless a certain threshold of colony success was reached. In
>order to
> win players had to sometimes help each other out so the whole
>colony
> would thrive thus making the balance closer and play more
>interesting.
> * Make 'em stay. Figure out incentives to keep players to stay till
>the
> end of a game. It ruins everyone's fun when players bail out
> prematurely. At the very least you can publish the percent of the
>time
> they bailed.
> * Allow handicapping. Let players handicap themselves if they want.
>Some
> players are willing to play with one hand behind their back so
>let
> them. (The most common use of this will be parents and kids
>playing
> together).
> * Facilitate special events. "Magical appearances" (scheduled and
> otherwise) in FRPs are cool. Strategy game tournaments
>(sanctioned and
> not) are too.
> * Leave room for ads. Banners will be around for a while. You might
>even
> want to let Nike outfit your monsters with shoes - for a price.
>Be
> creative.
>
> '96 Online Game
> Design Paper -Go Back Home-
>
>---------------------
>paul.d...@888rocketship.com
>
>See that 888 in my address ? Remove it to
>reply via email.
>
>Don't forget to call:
>
>Air Power BBS
>(847) 395-5140
Jonathan K.
>Why dont we all become gay and completely
>wipe out the human race.
>Thats why it is wrong.
>Thats why Iam against it.
>Quite simple really.
Oh, my goddess. I find it hard to believe that even in Texas anyone
is this uninformed.
I assume you're referring to HIV. Therefore, since HIV was only
identified fairly recently, you surely must have nothing against gay
people and lifestyles before then, right? In 1950, homosexuality was
fine in your book, correct? Might even be a good 'option' for your
child?
--
Jonathan K.
Kev Metcalfe
Andy S. wrote in message <6o585g$6rv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <199807100450...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> amyh8...@aol.com (AmyH832541) wrote:
>> A cancerous tumor is not a normal working
>> organ. What an idiot.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> It's not an entrance but an exit
>>
>
>How about people who get plastic surgery, tatoos, get their ears pierced.
>According to your twisted logic, they are all committing grevious sins.
Talk
>about idiots.
>
I like Fish....
(I couldn't think of anything else further off topic to post)
Kev
Nostromo
>> context. Not all things are blanket rules for all mankind. Sodom &
>> Gomorrah, for example, had a helluva lot more evil things going on then
>> just 'men having unnatural relations with other men', that God decided to
>> obliterate them. Jesus never directly said anything about this topic. Smart
>> man, really :-).
>> And for the record, I am a Christian (you guessed it, right?), I'm not
>> homosexual (not the last time I checked, anyways), though at least one of
>> my very dear friends (that I know of :-) is...
>
>an horde of crazed folks to save his own ass. Sounds like a basically screwed up situation
>to me. I'm a non-theist. Not quite an atheist (who believes there is no god) or an agnostic
>(who isn't sure) I personally couldn't care if there is one or not, and I don't know one way or
>the other, I just don't get into religion.
Fair enough. And I will defend your right to believe so. Free Choice came
before & is more important than almost everything else, especially in a
Christian framework.
And even though I almost never like to do this, here's MY very favorite
quote from the good book (you won't see this one often):
Romans 1:20:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his
eternal power and divine nature - have been *clearly* seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
Just food for thought... :-)
Rep...@partof.therightwingconspirancy
Oh, I see. It is okay for you to show YOUR bigotry and hatred against
someone with a different opinion than yours simply because you don't
agree with HIS opinion.
You really need to chill out, and gain a little more understanding and
tolerance for views different than your own. Your mean-spirited posts
show your hypocrisy.
Have a pleasant day....
In article <35A659...@spinach.xylogics.com>,
rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com says...
NOSPAM...@suba.com
amyh8...@aol.com (AmyH832541) wrote:
> Why dont we all become gay and completely
> wipe out the human race.
Um, no one's suggesting anyone "become" gay. And no one is seriously worried that
"everyone" will become gay.
> Thats why it is wrong.
> Thats why Iam against it.
Then why don't we all move to Texas? That too (strain on resources, massive disease from
overcrowding) would wipe out the human race. So, does that mean that Texas is wrong?
By your logic, yes, it does.
> Quite simple really.
Yeah... it is.
>
> Wayne
Sam
NOSPAM...@suba.com
NOSPAM...@suba.com wrote:
Ya know, I realized after I posted this that I'd made an error in using Texas as my example.
I could have said:
Why don't we all just get ourselves vasectomies or tubal ligation,
Why don't we all become catholic priests or celibate monks,
There are many things that cause a person not to have children. Claiming that homosexuality
threatens the very survival of the human race is ... Just goofy. Wayne, you should be equally
intolerant of Catholic priests, people who have been "fixed" and people who choose not to
have children as you are of homosexuals, IF your "thats why it is wrong" "thats why I am
against it" comments are for real. If you're gonna make a silly ass statement like that,
at least have the balls to say the *real* reason you are against homosexuals (like "I'm scared
of people who are different than me")
Finally, you know what I just realized? The 10 commandments does NOT contain *anything*
about homosexuality. So, if its such a horrible thing, then why isn't there a commandment
about it? And, since many things (like killing, thievery, disobeying your parents, adultery) ARE
proscribed in the 10C's, then why don't people start boycotting the army, capital punishment,
or lynching adulturers or children who mouth off to their folks? My guess is that
the 10 Commandments aren't *nearly* as important to folks as what 2 guys are doing in the
privacy of their own home.
Sorry to rant,
Sam
gre...@suba.com
Nostromo
>about homosexuality. So, if its such a horrible thing, then why isn't there a commandment
>about it? And, since many things (like killing, thievery, disobeying your parents, adultery) ARE
>proscribed in the 10C's, then why don't people start boycotting the army, capital punishment,
>or lynching adulturers or children who mouth off to their folks? My guess is that
>the 10 Commandments aren't *nearly* as important to folks as what 2 guys are doing in the
>privacy of their own home.
Just for the record, the Ten Commandments are purely a Jewish covenant.
Jesus 'transformed' them into just 2 summarized for Christians. And they
are most definitely NOT to be 'interpreted' literally and CANNOT be:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your mind & all your heart & all your
strength & all your soul
2. Love your neighbor as yourself
Anyone trying to tell another what that means would be a fool indeed :-)
So, Sam, in Christian theology the Ten Commandments are 'irrelevant', as
are all other religious laws. Jesus sent his Holy Spirit to dwell in men's
hearts & 'write' His laws there, that they would be freed from the burden
of trying to follow & interpret written laws & covenants. Pretty simple
really... So, you were saying about the 10Cs?
NOSPAM...@suba.com
nost...@spamfree.net.au (Nostromo) wrote:
> Just for the record, the Ten Commandments are purely a Jewish covenant.
> Jesus 'transformed' them into just 2 summarized for Christians. And they
> are most definitely NOT to be 'interpreted' literally and CANNOT be:
> 1. Love the Lord your God with all your mind & all your heart & all your
> strength & all your soul
> 2. Love your neighbor as yourself
> Anyone trying to tell another what that means would be a fool indeed :-)
> So, Sam, in Christian theology the Ten Commandments are 'irrelevant', as
> are all other religious laws. Jesus sent his Holy Spirit to dwell in men's
> hearts & 'write' His laws there, that they would be freed from the burden
> of trying to follow & interpret written laws & covenants. Pretty simple
> really... So, you were saying about the 10Cs?
Purely jewish? I didn't know that. I have heard some xtians talking about the commandments,
so mebbe some sects subscribe to em? Anyway: Do either of those 2 laws you mention
above have *anything* to do with homosexuality? No. Do either of them even *imply* that
there is *anything* wrong with it from a religious framework? Point I was trying to make was
that it's kind of silly to attribute anti-homosexual sentiment to the bible, save, for, maybe,
"be fruitful and multiply", but, of course, then that means that nuns and catholic priests are
damned too.
Sam Green
gre...@suba.com
smr
massive disease from
>overcrowding) would wipe out the human race. So, does that mean that Texas
is wrong?
>By your logic, yes, it does.
Personally, if the dude who was making these remarks is indicative of all
Texans, I say we give the whole damn big-ego'd little-dicked state back to
Mexico.
smr
Ryan Mark Vurlicer
*blink* *blink*
Hurm. There is something sadly amusing about that comment, in a
thread about stereotypes/prejudices.
Suffice to say that Wayne does not actually speak for all Texans.
Oddly enough, we seem to be something of a fairly diverse (if large) state.
About the only gurantee you can make is that we all live within a certain
geographic boundary. I can't believe I actually have to point this out.
*sigh*
Ah yes, also, guess what? I don't speak for all Texans either. Go figure.
<insert quote from G. Keillor re: Lake Wobegon, attributed instead to Texas>
--
Ryan Vurlicer
http://http.tamu.edu/~rmv2498
Nostromo
>so mebbe some sects subscribe to em? Anyway: Do either of those 2 laws you mention
Catholics are pretty hot on them. But then I'm not a Catholic! :-) (weeell,
only by baptism, not by practice)...
>above have *anything* to do with homosexuality? No. Do either of them even *imply* that
>there is *anything* wrong with it from a religious framework? Point I was trying to make was
>that it's kind of silly to attribute anti-homosexual sentiment to the bible, save, for, maybe,
>"be fruitful and multiply", but, of course, then that means that nuns and catholic priests are
>damned too.
Exactly, Sam! I was agreeing with you, albeit in a roundabout sort of
day...and perhaps 'irrelevant' was a bit strong of a word. The 10Cs are
still there for important historical & moral context to the Christian, but
let's face it, almost any law-abiding citizen can keep them; even a mafia
boss could *almost* follow them & get away with it.
Hence came the Holy Spirit to write the law on Men's hearts that they
couldn't be legalistic & mis-interpret God's Law - even though the 2Cs of
Jesus sound like a slackening of the Law, they are anything but...
Strategy games anyone? :-)))
smr
>>Personally, if the dude who was making these remarks is indicative of all
>>Texans, I say we give the whole damn big-ego'd little-dicked state back to
>>Mexico.
>>
>>smr
>
>*blink* *blink*
>
> Hurm. There is something sadly amusing about that comment, in a
>thread about stereotypes/prejudices.
Sorry, had the sarcasm meter set a bit too high on that one. Forget to
consider that some people might zip past it. You seem to have caught it,
tho'.
In reality, I'm well aware that Texas has it's share of both bigots and
beautiful people. Well, maybe a teensy bit more than it's share, in my own
personal experience with Texas. At any rate, to push this even further
off-topic (and, of course, to piss some people off), here's my favorite joke
that involves Texas, at least partially:
Q: Why are Mexicans so pissed that we stole half their country (California,
Texas, New Mexico, etc..)?
A: Because we stole the half with paved roads and electricity.
Let the bleeding heart diversity freaks come out now...
smr
Warlock
amyh8...@aol.com (AmyH832541) wrote:
>Homosexuality is wrong. Having your dick
>cut off because you want to be something
>different than what God made you is damn
>sure wrong. I have no tolerance for what is wrong.
>
> Wayne
Damocles
On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 03:35:47 GMT, nost...@spamfree.net.au (Nostromo)
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Fair enough. And I will defend your right to believe so. Free Choice came
>before & is more important than almost everything else, especially in a
>Christian framework.
>And even though I almost never like to do this, here's MY very favorite
>quote from the good book (you won't see this one often):
>Romans 1:20:
>"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his
>eternal power and divine nature - have been *clearly* seen, being
>understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
>
>Just food for thought... :-)
Let me step in here and clear up a few things:
The Jewish taboo against homosexuality is really very simple in
origin. The ancient Semitic tribes believed that semen was a finite
resource. Just as you shouldn't waste water in the desert, so you
shouldn't waste sperm. To do so was to endanger the fertility of the
tribe and ultimately destroy it. Masturbation was equally "wrong", for
the same reason. How do you reinforce taboos? Make them into moral
conventions. Thus the passage in Deuteronomy calling homosexuality an
abomination.
It's important to remember that at the time the Jews were the
exception, not the rule with regards to sexuality. Homosexuality was
an accepted norm within the Meditteranean world, especially in ancient
Greece. As Christianity spread its tentacles throughout the area, the
Jewish sexual taboos became part of its moral code where other aspects
of Judaism fell by the wayside.
________________________________________________
Look out my window, what do I see?
Crack in the sky and a hand reaching down to me.
All the nightmares came today,
And it looks as though they're here to stay.
- David Bowie, "Oh You Pretty Things"
Paul Botts
couple of her games. In fact one of them (Global Conquest) is still a
better real-time strategy game than anything on the market now.
I was interested in much of her speech quoted below - thanks for posting
it! A few comments:
In article <35a5e086...@news.nus.edu.sg>, <ferra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, I'll try again.
>>
>>Quoting Dani Berry:
>>
>>Imaginary Playmates in Real-time or Why Online Games Suck
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>A Lecture for the 1997 Computer Game Developers Conference, Copyright
>>1997,
>>by Dani Bunten Berry
>>
[big snip]
>>
>>Good Multi-player Design Elements
>>
>>Here comes my annual punch list of things to consider when designing
>>multi-player games updated and expanded from last year based on what
>>we've
>>learned:
>>
>> * Build in the "Norm Effect" if at all possible. This is named for
>>the
>> character from "Cheers" who when he enters the bar is greeted by
>> everyone calling his name in unison. Pitiful old IRC chat-rooms
>>can
>> provide some of this effect so surely we can find some way to
>>welcome
>> people into our game environments.
This isn't a helpful suggestion without any specific suggestions of
_how_ to accomplish it.
>> * "Zero sum" is bad. Games where I win and you lose are bad. Worse
>>still
>> is "I win and all the rest of you lose". Notwithstanding the
>>current
>> cultural obsession with endzone strutting by winners, losers do
>>not
>> enjoy themselves and if you can help take the sting out of it,
>>you
>> should. Alliances, cooperative play, ranked "winners" rather than
>>"A
>> winner" with a bunch of losers are all options.
>> * Pacing needs variety. Slow periods should follow intense ones and
>> forced "time-outs" can offer opportunities to socialize, catch
>>your
>> breath and anticipate things to come. Remember, the players no
>>longer
>> have a "pause key" as they did in a solo-game.
I agree with both of these.
>> * Strategies need "wiggle room". People have different personal
>>styles
>> and when playing against each other it's great to let them "do it
>> their own way" rather than a single approach that all must
>>follow. If
>> possible you should balance the game such that a strategic
>>planner for
>> instance might not always beat the joystick jockey or the
>>detailed
>> tactical type. A game that allows for diverse people to play
>>diverse
>> ways is always best.
Yes, absolutely! Couldn't agree more. Most games these days seem to be
heavily slanted in favor of one particular approach (the "tank-rushing"
problem in RTS games, for example).
>> * Legends must grow. Provide ways for players to carry their
>>experiences
>> with them. "Game films" are an excellent (and reasonably
>> cost-effective option) in games where what's sent between the
>>player's
>> computers is a stream of "deltas". Saving that stream and running
>>it
>> back through the game engine provides an opportunity to review
>>what
>> happened during the game. This turns an ephemeral, fast paced
>> experience into a story that can be used to "save face" if the
>>player
>> lost, to learn how to win or just to chronicle their
>>accomplishments.
>> At the very least, try to include ongoing statistics or character
>> attributes outside the environment of a single game execution.
Yes yes yes! I can't believe how many games are being released without a
replay or film option, it seems so basic to me.
>> * Court your newbies. Nothing will destroy a player's interest in
>>your
>> game quicker than being humiliated a few times when they are just
>> trying to figure out what to do. If possible build in inducements
>>for
>> advanced players to help newbies in order to get something to
>>advance
>> further in the game environment -- like taking an "apprentice"
>>might
>> be the only path to "master rank". At the very least try to make
>> starting as safe on player's egos as you can.
This is a real problem. THe learning curve for games like Total
Annihilation is absurdly steep. "Easy to learn, hard to master" should
be the ideal.
>> * Allow personalization. Let players define their own icons that
>>the
>> others see or somehow personalize their own game space. A big
>>part of
>> the enjoyment of being with others is expressing yourself. A
>>bunch of
>> player avatars all dressed from the same menu gives me the
>>creeps.
>> Encourage graffiti.
>> * Keep the features down. When humans play each other there's this
>>"he
>> thinks that I think that he thinks …" kind of mental gymnastics
>>taking
>> place. This is far more interesting than another unit type or
>>another
>> option to evaluate to almost everyone.
COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!! 75 unit types and 63 different terrains is just
clutter.
>> * Include audio/visual subtleties. People are remarkably good at
>> recognizing patterns almost subconsciously and they also find it
>> rewarding. A couple of pixels blinking in the corner of the
>>screen and
>> a small sound effect that allude to a possibility allows a player
>>to
>> feel very astute when they can put it together with an outcome.
>>This
>> can also facilitate the personal playing style mentioned above
>>since
>> some folks are better at it than others.
Problem here is you start to get into micromanagement, which some of us
hate.
>> * Avoid numbers. Almost no one enjoys calculations. (At least no
>>one
>> "normal"). Humans prefer heuristic (rules of thumb) relationships
>>or
>> continuous equations far more. The heuristics feel good when you
>> figure them out and the continuous equations can only be
>>predicted
>> which also seems to scratch an itch in our brains.
Yes, absolutely correct.
>> * Include spectators. Leave room for "lurkers" to watch games being
>> played and even to effect them in minor ways if possible. A
>>design
>> that includes taking turns, which makes the other players
>>spectators
>> for part of the time, can be interesting if what the player is
>>doing
>> has an effect on them, is interesting to watch and they can
>>tease,
>> taunt and kibitz while watching.
This is something games are doing more now, that I really enjoy.
>> * Facilitate relationships. Allow players to form clubs, clans,
>>groups
>> and facilitate scheduled as well impromptu meetings online. Help
>> strangers mix and friends find each other.
>> * Use time limits. Whenever possible design your game so it can be
>> played within a fixed time limit. This will allow people to
>>schedule
>> their involvement. A game you can play a couple of times in an
>>evening
>> would be a good design goal. If you can't end the game at
>>specific
>> times try to at least facilitate a graceful exit opportunity such
>>that
>> a player quits while they are having fun and not after they're so
>> exhausted they'll never come back again.
I don't like "fixed time limits" if that means, "whoever's ahead at 8:00
wins." I do like the design goal he states, a lot. And most importantly,
all multiplayer games must allow save-and-resume.
I know, any savefile can be hacked and people can cheat you. In which
case, you just don't play with that asshole any more, and you tell all
your online friends not to, either. If somebody is that much in need of
a life, put them out of your mind and find someone else to play with,
it's not hard to do any more.
>> * Include chance. Although most players hate the idea of random
>>events
>> that will destroy their nice safe predictable strategies, nothing
>> keeps a game alive like a wrench in the works. Do not allow
>>players to
>> decide this issue. They don't know it but we're offering them an
>> excuse for when they lose ("It was that damn random event that
>>did me
>> in!") and an opportunity to "beat the odds" when they win.
Yeccch. This is my strongest disagreement. I *hate* Dani's "Random
Events" idea to death, that's the one feature I _always_ turn off in
Global Conquest.
>> * Keep the balance. Try to keep the distance between the losers and
>>the
>> winners small enough that the outcome is in doubt as long as
>>possible.
>> You can adjust random events, attrition factors or whatever.
>>They'll
>> thank you for keeping the games interesting even though you
>>should
>> probably not tell them what you're doing.
>> * Include cooperation. Even in basically competitive games you can
>>allow
>> for alliances, collusion or at least less cutthroat behavior. In
>> M.U.L.E. I used an interesting trick that would not allow a
>>"Winner"
>> unless a certain threshold of colony success was reached. In
>>order to
>> win players had to sometimes help each other out so the whole
>>colony
>> would thrive thus making the balance closer and play more
>>interesting.
THis is an important and worthwhile thing. Team play is really a lpot of
fun in many games.
>> * Make 'em stay. Figure out incentives to keep players to stay till
>>the
>> end of a game. It ruins everyone's fun when players bail out
>> prematurely. At the very least you can publish the percent of the
>>time
>> they bailed.
Yes, the online gaming market needs to do some serious work here.
>> * Allow handicapping. Let players handicap themselves if they want.
>>Some
>> players are willing to play with one hand behind their back so
>>let
>> them. (The most common use of this will be parents and kids
>>playing
>> together).
>> * Facilitate special events. "Magical appearances" (scheduled and
>> otherwise) in FRPs are cool. Strategy game tournaments
>>(sanctioned and
>> not) are too.
>> * Leave room for ads. Banners will be around for a while. You might
>>even
>> want to let Nike outfit your monsters with shoes - for a price.
>>Be
>> creative.
Sigh. Probably inevitable, yes.
--
"The United States would be just about perfect if it were not for three
flaws: it is obsessed with race, it is full of lawyers, and it is
overrun by religious nuts." Gwynne Dyer, Chicago Tribune, 4/22/98
This email was from Paul Botts: p...@mcs.com, http://www.mcs.net/~prb/
Kevin McGuire
: Yeccch. This is my strongest disagreement. I *hate* Dani's "Random
: Events" idea to death, that's the one feature I _always_ turn off in
: Global Conquest.
I always felt that the "Random Events" in M.U.L.E. were great - it was a
subtle way to equalize the game, and to keep the outcome in doubt. No
one likes playing a game where the winner is decided early and then it is
just slogging on to the eventual conclusion. Since these are just
"games" I always enjoy the random factors that get built in - perhaps
it would be less fun if you were only playing against the computer, but
in multiplayer, they were great. Nothing like having your friends roar
with approval when your Crystite production gets taken by the pirates...
--
Kevin McGuire
University of Pennsylvania
#Remove the 2 "moo" to reply#
Paul Botts
Kevin McGuire <Kevin McGuire kevin...@sas.upenn.edu.moo> wrote:
>Paul Botts (p...@MCS.COM) wrote:
>: Yeccch. This is my strongest disagreement. I *hate* Dani's "Random
>: Events" idea to death, that's the one feature I _always_ turn off in
>: Global Conquest.
>
>subtle way to equalize the game, and to keep the outcome in doubt. No
>one likes playing a game where the winner is decided early and then it is
>just slogging on to the eventual conclusion. Since these are just
>"games" I always enjoy the random factors that get built in - perhaps
>it would be less fun if you were only playing against the computer, but
>in multiplayer, they were great. Nothing like having your friends roar
>with approval when your Crystite production gets taken by the pirates...
>
I much prefer games that are properly balanced so that it isn't "decided
early and then just slogging on" to an inevitable conclusion. I like
games, like Global Conquest, where a player can come back from a bad
start, where having 60% of the map in hand doesn't _necessarily_
mean a no-brainer win. Where a good player with a strong position who
thinks he's just coasting to the knockout, can be shocked into
submission by a really well-played strategic move and attack by the
supposedly beaten player.
I grant you that games that well-balanced are few and far between, and
damned difficult to write. Which may in practice mean that random events
are the only way to keep a decent level of unpredictability in the game,
strategically at least. It's definitely a kludge, though, and not nearly
as satisfying.
Herring
glass in the fire and said:
<snip>
>
>offense taken.
>
>It's believers like you that give us all a bad name.
>
>It also says plain as day in the bible that pi = 3, but the next time
>I build a bridge I don't think I'll let moses do the calculations for me.
>
>You know Adam and Eve may have eaten that apple that gave them the
>gift of KNOWING what was right and what was wrong, but look at your
>history and see what kind of worlds are created by those
>who believe "the ability to tell right from wrong is built in
>all of us" before you come preaching that in my corner of the world.
>
>Bet you're confused why people think you're a nazi.
>
>Surety is the refuge of the pharasee.
>
>dfs
Just as an aside, where exactly does it say in the bible that
homosexuality is wrong? I don't know the bible inside and out 'cause
I was raised a Catholic ;)
I seem to recall reading it was one of the contributors to the old
testament, the same dude that advocated punting your wife out of the
house while she was 'impure' (1 week out of every 4). Could have got
that garbled however.
Cheers.
Remove (Nospam) to reply via email
And remember, shop smart, shop S-Mart.
Nostromo
>subtle way to equalize the game, and to keep the outcome in doubt. No
>one likes playing a game where the winner is decided early and then it is
>just slogging on to the eventual conclusion. Since these are just
>"games" I always enjoy the random factors that get built in - perhaps
>it would be less fun if you were only playing against the computer, but
>in multiplayer, they were great. Nothing like having your friends roar
>with approval when your Crystite production gets taken by the pirates...
Same as Stars! :-) If you can get something like the 'Cherry Bomb' from the
Mystery Trader in mid-game you can really turn an ugly tide :-)
JALefkowit
>
> Danielle Paula Berry, 49, of Little Rock died Friday, July 3, 1998,
>following a battle with lung cancer.
<snif>
Somewhere above us, Dani and God are sitting in front of a Commodore 64,
arguing over the price of Smithore...
Rest in peace, Dani. Thanks for the great gaming memories.
<moment of silence>
Jason Lefkowitz
James Dusek
au...@nospam.mindspring.com says...
Two years ago Texas expelled anyone without a pickup truck.
James Dusek