This entire show is supposedly some form of game criticism where we talk about what worked and what didn’t. But let’s put that idea aside for the next couple of episodes, because that’s not really what our conversation is all about. When I say something didn’t work for me, I’m using that to segue to another philosophical question. I’m not actually saying the game is bad, or that it should have been done differently. I’m a big believer in the idea that when it comes to philosophical wanking like this, there are no wrong answersObviously the stakes go up when we start talking about how this stuff could be applied to real-world problems, but that’s why I love sci-fi. It gives us a safe space to play around with these ideas, where nobody dies if we’re “wrong”..
To put it more specifically: It’s pretty clear that Simon (and perhaps the developers?) disagree with me on a pretty fundamental level. And that’s okay. I bring this up because I disagree with the game often, and I don’t want people to think I’m counting these disagreements as faults, from a game-design sense. It’s all good.
 Obviously the stakes go up when we start talking about how this stuff could be applied to real-world problems, but that’s why I love sci-fi. It gives us a safe space to play around with these ideas, where nobody dies if we’re “wrong”.
Quakecon 2012 Annotated
An interesting but technically dense talk about gaming technology. I translate it for the non-coders.
Trusting the System
How do you know the rules of the game are what the game claims? More importantly, how do the DEVELOPERS know?
Programming Language for Games
Game developer Jon Blow is making a programming language just for games. Why is he doing this, and what will it mean for game development?
A stream-of-gameplay review of Dead Island. This game is a cavalcade of bugs and bad design choices.
What is this silly word, why did some people get so irritated by it, and why did it fall out of use?