defender, it may be hard for you to comprehend, but some of us simply found those game elements fun.
i know i'll regret this, but to bring up that stupid fun games discussion from way back: if "fun" has a scientific definition in video games, then how come designers come up with ideas and gameplay elements that get absolutely trashed during playtesting? In fact, isn't the very point of playtesting to inject a human response factor into the development in the game?
noooooo not the one about how nobody but defender knows what fun is again
this is like opening pandora's box
actually more like that one level in pandora's temple where you're trying to push that block before the spikes pop up and kill you and god damn it i'm playing through god of war again and how did i ever get through this part the first time rrrgh
I played Patapon for about 30 minutes just using a demo PSP at Gamestop. It's a good idea in theory, and the art is fantastic, but it fits the very definition of monotonous. I understand it was only thirty minutes, but if I was bored and tired with the game before the one hour mark I can't imagine the situation improving any.
It is a rhythm game on a portable system, though. I don't think you're supposed to play it for hour-long blocks.
Okay, I'll give you that. They wanted a casual rhythm game that you can just pick up and play whenever you want.
But, they also apparently try to tell a serious and involved story, which doesn't really support the 'pick up and play' aspect too much. Also, if every segment is essentially the same (which it is) what incentive is there to keep playing? There are no advanced tactics, no deeper challenges, just "attack, defend, forward, retreat."
Have you ever played Yoshi's Touch and Go? The gameplay is different, but they share many of the same flaws.
There's also charge up. The advanced tactics come from party setup as opposed to the actual battle. There are deeper challenges while fighting bosses.
The story isn't serious or involved.
You've been gone for a while, and now that you're back, the Patapons want to go to see IT. So you guys go to see IT. There's an enemy tribe in the way. The end.
I really enjoyed playing and beating the game. The problem that I had with the game is that I felt the item/money drops were too low, thus making it a grind to get the items/money needed for newer/better units.
The dull beginnings of the game give a good contrast to later on when you're in fever mode with a full army chanting and cheering as dozens of arrows are flying into the enemy camp as your troops rush in to slice shit up.
i think part of the thing with combat is that i am crappy at videogames, and found it pretty challenging
seriously?
wow....
i died a whole bunch of times during the game and like three or four times during the big fight with all the guards at the end
I was pretty good at the fighting, but in that last huge battle with all the Templars, every time I countered (well, 9/10 times) it would only knock them down. I ended up having to Benny Hill all around the area while my "health" built back up, because it was taking so many counters to kill anyone, that eventually they wore me down.
Ashcroft on
0
Options
TonkkaSome one in the club tonightHas stolen my ideas.Registered Userregular
I've watched plenty more videos of patapon and Leanna and both agree that the music is absolutely infuriatingly annoying.
In regards to AC, I really loved the hell out of it when I could bring myself to play it. After getting the sense of accomplishment of getting all the investigation parts, doing all the little things you can do in each town, and stealthing the assassination the best I can, I stop playing. But that means I know that as soon as I start the game back up, the first thing I'll have to do is slow trot my cloak and dagger ass across the middle east for 25 minutes the second I start back up to get to the next town. That kept me from wanting to play.
The combat fits with the "BIG RED BUTTON" concept that a few developers are pushing for, Molyneux, I believe, where the game will contextually figure out what you want to do from one button press. It's supposed to make combat exciting and cinematic while leaving it wide open for anyone to play and enjoy. I think that is absolute pants, and that you should not be ashamed to make your game challenging at the cost of some sales.
All of this didn't keep the game from being fun when I was in it, and for the reasons that they showed in the previews; I was spider-man'ing around a city looking badass and jumping from rooftops. Of course, that would be better suited to a game like Mirror Effect or whatever the new one is called. Most of the time, I found myself getting big clumps of guards chasing me about so I could fly from rooftop to rooftop and fight them in improbable places, making me feel a bit like Jason Bourne meets Princess Bride. But I had to make my own fun most of the time. So to me, the game failed to be perfect, but didn't fail to be good.
Remember that episode of Happy Days where the Fonz was actually wrong about something, but he was completely unable to admit to it.
This thread is like that.
Some_Jerk on
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe, and from this side only! The flight of a half-man, half-bird. Dinosaurs nuzzling their young in pastures where strip-malls should be. Cookies on dowels. All those moments lost in time; gone like eggs off a hooker's stomach. Time to die.
defender, it may be hard for you to comprehend, but some of us simply found those game elements fun.
i know i'll regret this, but to bring up that stupid fun games discussion from way back: if "fun" has a scientific definition in video games, then how come designers come up with ideas and gameplay elements that get absolutely trashed during playtesting? In fact, isn't the very point of playtesting to inject a human response factor into the development in the game?
Well, the implication here would be that there's only one right answer. I do not suggest that there is only one right answer. In fact, what I put down like a year ago or whatever is very open-ended:
Fun gameplay comes from making meaningful, interesting decisions.
"Meaningful" means that the decision is important and affects the outcome of the game. If, for example, the best unit in Starcraft in any given situation was the Goliath, then players wouldn't enjoy the strategic army-building aspect of the game; there's really only one thing to build, so the "decision" to mass Goliaths isn't meaningful because there are no viable alternatives. That part of the game will not be fun once a player figures out that massing Goliaths is the right move every time.
"Interesting" is much more personal. As some people here may have overheard, I absolutely love melee combat. I've trained in different martial arts from European classical and modern fencing to Japanese and American Karate systems, Brazilian Jiujitsu, good old-fashioned fistcuffs, pretty much anything available to me. So when a game gives me choices like "right kick, left kick, right punch, left punch, throw, block, parry, counter, sidestep, jump, or duck," I find the decision VERY interesting. My dad likes more abstract, metaphorical strategic and tactical decisions, so he likes chess and basketball, and dislikes the fast-paced and literal decision-making in combat. Neither is better, they're just different.
This works nicely with the substance-and-style nature of gameplay; "meaningful" is the substance, and "interesting" is the style. Bear in mind that things like "good graphics" and "cool storyline" register indirectly under the "interesting" umbrella. Solid Snake stopping a nuclear attack by terrorists has nothing to do with fighting Revovler Ocelot or sneaking around behind guards or timing punches just right to catch the ninja just as he gets into range but before he can make his own attack. But it sets a backdrop.
tl; dr: So really, there's a two-part thing right there, and it's very simple, and there's ample room for personal taste, so I'm afraid that the argument that I define what I personally like as universally correct for fun is bullshit. My own answer to "what makes a game fun" makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to my personal tastes.
i think part of the thing with combat is that i am crappy at videogames, and found it pretty challenging
seriously?
wow....
i died a whole bunch of times during the game and like three or four times during the big fight with all the guards at the end
I was pretty good at the fighting, but in that last huge battle with all the Templars, every time I countered (well, 9/10 times) it would only knock them down. I ended up having to Benny Hill all around the area while my "health" built back up, because it was taking so many counters to kill anyone, that eventually they wore me down.
When a counter "only knocks someone down" it has still done massive damage to them. Templars are way too strong to be killed with only a single counter, so the first counter is always a punch or a kick. Usually, you fight them one-on-one and can counter and then land three "heavy" attacks while they try to get back up. If there are other enemies, you just have to counter them more than once.
If the average enemy was upped at least close to the templars, it would be a much better game, I think. I'd also really love it to be easier to run up a wall, jump back at someone and knife them
I've watched plenty more videos of patapon and Leanna and both agree that the music is absolutely infuriatingly annoying.
In regards to AC, I really loved the hell out of it when I could bring myself to play it. After getting the sense of accomplishment of getting all the investigation parts, doing all the little things you can do in each town, and stealthing the assassination the best I can, I stop playing. But that means I know that as soon as I start the game back up, the first thing I'll have to do is slow trot my cloak and dagger ass across the middle east for 25 minutes the second I start back up to get to the next town. That kept me from wanting to play.
Yeah, I think I should clarify my feelings in light of this. AC has moments of brilliance. The problem is that those moments of brilliance are marred by an overwhelming number of moments of grinding boredom. The assassinations, although way too easy for my taste, were exciting and cool-looking. Some of the in-town stuff had the "Spider-Man" appeal of swooping down and kicking four dudes' asses to save a civilian. The problem is that when you do it ten times in a row, it becomes annoying and boring instead of cool. Especially because the combat and stealth systems are so shallow. It's basically "counter until everyone is dead" and then "press 'blend' and walk away, then climb up a wall and leave."
The combat fits with the "BIG RED BUTTON" concept that a few developers are pushing for, Molyneux, I believe, where the game will contextually figure out what you want to do from one button press. It's supposed to make combat exciting and cinematic while leaving it wide open for anyone to play and enjoy. I think that is absolute pants, and that you should not be ashamed to make your game challenging at the cost of some sales.
Yeah. That's absolute shit. That's genuine regression. The AVGN made this point with the Silver Surfer game. "There's never a case when I don't want to fire." So, like, the game should just be on constant auto-fire. When you take the player's decision-making out of combat, you make the combat uninteresting. If I want cinematic combat without having to make meaningful decisions, I will rent a kung-fu movie or turn on Soul Calibur and watch the computer fight itself.
What weapon? My personal preference is epee. I find the rules to be the most "realistic," not that I'll ever need to fight for real with epees or anything. I like sabre as a weapon for the edge and all, but I strongly dislike target area and priority. It's unfortunate that sabre degenerates into a flick-game when you take away the priority stuff.
If the average enemy was upped at least close to the templars, it would be a much better game, I think. I'd also really love it to be easier to run up a wall, jump back at someone and knife them
Yeah, but to their credit, they already made Prince of Persia, and they were going for more realistic-looking combat in this. I really like how they did combat in general, I just think that counters need something to weaken them. Maybe, like, God Of War mini-games or something. Also, counter-attack should probably not be given to you right away. I mean, look at the "dodge" ability! That should clearly be considered a lower-level skill than counter-attacking. I think that just some minor tweaks would help a lot. They'll probably clean it up a lot for the sequel. (I hope.)
I've been learning foil for a little over a month now. Next quarter we're doing more foil and sabre, which sucks because epee looks pretty dang rad.
Well, that is the traditional method, though. Foil to teach theory and principle, epee is the real weapon. It's kinda like learning Java before C++, to me. (As a game programmer.) Epee is pretty rad; whoever hits first gets the point. If you both hit at the same time, you both get a point. Doesn't matter where you hit, so if someone lunges sloppily, you can stab a leg or a wrist or whatever. No taking turns, no worrying about hitting the chest instead of the arm or whatever.
I went to a tournament in Berkley and watched some of the final epee bouts. The best dude from here was up against some toolbag from Davis who kept going for his foot. Not that being able to hit the foot isn't impressive, but it's basically all the guy did whenever he was a point behind.
I love Java.
I hate the class, however.
Our book goes into detail, which would be nice if it wasn't excessive to the point that it's unnecessary because you're just learning it, and you get bogged down in the needle-fine points and get confused.
Which is why I don't crack the book except to look at example programs, in order to get an idea of how I'm supposed to write the next program.
That's one of the reasons I stopped, actually. I got really bored of stabbing people in the foot. The problem is that it's actually very viable and quite a dangerous/realistic tactic with that weapon. The thing that causes that to be so effective is that you can't really sidestep on the strip, so it's very easy to know where the foot will be.
I love Java.
I hate the class, however.
Our book goes into detail, which would be nice if it wasn't excessive to the point that it's unnecessary because you're just learning it, and you get bogged down in the needle-fine points and get confused.
Which is why I don't crack the book except to look at example programs, in order to get an idea of how I'm supposed to write the next program.
Actually, despite being Wiggin, you are pretty much doing it right. Programming is something you learn by doing. Read up on stuff, build stuff. Theory is cute and all, but programming (perspective of a game programmer, again) is about making shit that works and works right and works fast. Study examples of working code, modify it, truly understand it, and then you can make your own.
I've watched plenty more videos of patapon and Leanna and both agree that the music is absolutely infuriatingly annoying.
In regards to AC, I really loved the hell out of it when I could bring myself to play it. After getting the sense of accomplishment of getting all the investigation parts, doing all the little things you can do in each town, and stealthing the assassination the best I can, I stop playing. But that means I know that as soon as I start the game back up, the first thing I'll have to do is slow trot my cloak and dagger ass across the middle east for 25 minutes the second I start back up to get to the next town. That kept me from wanting to play.
Yeah, I think I should clarify my feelings in light of this. AC has moments of brilliance. The problem is that those moments of brilliance are marred by an overwhelming number of moments of grinding boredom. The assassinations, although way too easy for my taste, were exciting and cool-looking. Some of the in-town stuff had the "Spider-Man" appeal of swooping down and kicking four dudes' asses to save a civilian. The problem is that when you do it ten times in a row, it becomes annoying and boring instead of cool. Especially because the combat and stealth systems are so shallow. It's basically "counter until everyone is dead" and then "press 'blend' and walk away, then climb up a wall and leave."
The combat fits with the "BIG RED BUTTON" concept that a few developers are pushing for, Molyneux, I believe, where the game will contextually figure out what you want to do from one button press. It's supposed to make combat exciting and cinematic while leaving it wide open for anyone to play and enjoy. I think that is absolute pants, and that you should not be ashamed to make your game challenging at the cost of some sales.
Yeah. That's absolute shit. That's genuine regression. The AVGN made this point with the Silver Surfer game. "There's never a case when I don't want to fire." So, like, the game should just be on constant auto-fire. When you take the player's decision-making out of combat, you make the combat uninteresting. If I want cinematic combat without having to make meaningful decisions, I will rent a kung-fu movie or turn on Soul Calibur and watch the computer fight itself.
Yeah, we're pretty much on the exact same page here. In the long run, I genuinely enjoyed the game, but not enough to keep me from loaning it to a friend to play and moving on to Mass Effect, which annoyed me a bit, because I was actually interested in what was going on the "present" parts of the game.
I love Java.
I hate the class, however.
Our book goes into detail, which would be nice if it wasn't excessive to the point that it's unnecessary because you're just learning it, and you get bogged down in the needle-fine points and get confused.
Which is why I don't crack the book except to look at example programs, in order to get an idea of how I'm supposed to write the next program.
Actually, despite being Wiggin, you are pretty much doing it right. Programming is something you learn by doing. Read up on stuff, build stuff. Theory is cute and all, but programming (perspective of a game programmer, again) is about making shit that works and works right and works fast. Study examples of working code, modify it, truly understand it, and then you can make your own.
Essentially what I've been doing since I took Intro last year.
Apparently, most of the kids in my class copy/paste from the example files on the computers, while I write my shit from scratch in Eclipse.
Maybe that's why I actually know what I'm doing.
I love Java.
I hate the class, however.
Our book goes into detail, which would be nice if it wasn't excessive to the point that it's unnecessary because you're just learning it, and you get bogged down in the needle-fine points and get confused.
Which is why I don't crack the book except to look at example programs, in order to get an idea of how I'm supposed to write the next program.
Actually, despite being Wiggin, you are pretty much doing it right. Programming is something you learn by doing. Read up on stuff, build stuff. Theory is cute and all, but programming (perspective of a game programmer, again) is about making shit that works and works right and works fast. Study examples of working code, modify it, truly understand it, and then you can make your own.
Essentially what I've been doing since I took Intro last year.
Apparently, most of the kids in my class copy/paste from the example files on the computers, while I write my shit from scratch in Eclipse.
Maybe that's why I actually know what I'm doing.
Wow. Yeah. You are doing it exactly right, and that really is why you know how to do things. You are better at this than like half of my graduating class.
To be honest, I hated using Eclipse when I started, because it made it too easy.
If I made an error, I preferred finishing my program in Notepad, compiling, getting an error, and counting lines until I figured out what I did wrong.
I have no idea why.
Yeah or just straight up C. You might wanna ease in with C++ first, though, if you're coming from Java.
I don't know because I learned C first, then added the class-based stuff in C++ to it. I think that it made me a far more efficient programmer. Also because I worked on pre-386 machines. There's something about having to use divisions carefully (they're expensive!) that really makes you cautious and efficient as fuck later on.
I don't know what that is.
Honestly, writing code is the only thing I could see myself doing for a living, outside of teaching.
Get yourself a business card, my friend, you are programmer. I didn't realize it fully until recently when I said I can't think of anything else I'd rather be doing.
Yeah, our school stopped offering C++, which is why I took Java to begin with.
I'm definitely planning on taking more programming classes in college, if I can, in case I end up wanting to switch my major to something along these lines.
I don't know what that is.
Honestly, writing code is the only thing I could see myself doing for a living, outside of teaching.
Get yourself a business card, my friend, you are programmer. I didn't realize it fully until recently when I said I can't think of anything else I'd rather be doing.
If I knew what kinds of majors were available for this, I would probably switch my major by the end of the first semester.
Because teaching isn't looking so viable lately.
And I love sitting down, cracking my knuckles, and cranking out a long string of code in 20 minutes.
The same string of code that takes the other kids 20 minutes to figure out they're supposed to write it.
Yeah, our school stopped offering C++, which is why I took Java to begin with.
I'm definitely planning on taking more programming classes in college, if I can, in case I end up wanting to switch my major to something along these lines.
Not too surprising, most schools I know are switching from the intro language from C++ to Java. Though I kind of wished they'd still use C++ as the base language, mainly because once you learn C++, you pretty much know Java (minus a few syntax issues). Going from Java to C++ is a little trickier because Java hides some maintainence issues.
I know there are a few people in SE who do programming for a living/schooling.
What kind of jobs are there that I could get into, outside of the game industry?
I really want to start looking at this as an alternative to teaching, and I really don't want to ask in H/A because I don't know who those people are and they scare me.
Posts
i know i'll regret this, but to bring up that stupid fun games discussion from way back: if "fun" has a scientific definition in video games, then how come designers come up with ideas and gameplay elements that get absolutely trashed during playtesting? In fact, isn't the very point of playtesting to inject a human response factor into the development in the game?
this is like opening pandora's box
actually more like that one level in pandora's temple where you're trying to push that block before the spikes pop up and kill you and god damn it i'm playing through god of war again and how did i ever get through this part the first time rrrgh
The story isn't serious or involved.
I really enjoyed playing and beating the game. The problem that I had with the game is that I felt the item/money drops were too low, thus making it a grind to get the items/money needed for newer/better units.
The dull beginnings of the game give a good contrast to later on when you're in fever mode with a full army chanting and cheering as dozens of arrows are flying into the enemy camp as your troops rush in to slice shit up.
I was pretty good at the fighting, but in that last huge battle with all the Templars, every time I countered (well, 9/10 times) it would only knock them down. I ended up having to Benny Hill all around the area while my "health" built back up, because it was taking so many counters to kill anyone, that eventually they wore me down.
I suck so bad at dmc4
In regards to AC, I really loved the hell out of it when I could bring myself to play it. After getting the sense of accomplishment of getting all the investigation parts, doing all the little things you can do in each town, and stealthing the assassination the best I can, I stop playing. But that means I know that as soon as I start the game back up, the first thing I'll have to do is slow trot my cloak and dagger ass across the middle east for 25 minutes the second I start back up to get to the next town. That kept me from wanting to play.
The combat fits with the "BIG RED BUTTON" concept that a few developers are pushing for, Molyneux, I believe, where the game will contextually figure out what you want to do from one button press. It's supposed to make combat exciting and cinematic while leaving it wide open for anyone to play and enjoy. I think that is absolute pants, and that you should not be ashamed to make your game challenging at the cost of some sales.
All of this didn't keep the game from being fun when I was in it, and for the reasons that they showed in the previews; I was spider-man'ing around a city looking badass and jumping from rooftops. Of course, that would be better suited to a game like Mirror Effect or whatever the new one is called. Most of the time, I found myself getting big clumps of guards chasing me about so I could fly from rooftop to rooftop and fight them in improbable places, making me feel a bit like Jason Bourne meets Princess Bride. But I had to make my own fun most of the time. So to me, the game failed to be perfect, but didn't fail to be good.
There is no watch exchange implicitly or explicitly stated, so no.
This thread is like that.
Well, the implication here would be that there's only one right answer. I do not suggest that there is only one right answer. In fact, what I put down like a year ago or whatever is very open-ended:
Fun gameplay comes from making meaningful, interesting decisions.
"Meaningful" means that the decision is important and affects the outcome of the game. If, for example, the best unit in Starcraft in any given situation was the Goliath, then players wouldn't enjoy the strategic army-building aspect of the game; there's really only one thing to build, so the "decision" to mass Goliaths isn't meaningful because there are no viable alternatives. That part of the game will not be fun once a player figures out that massing Goliaths is the right move every time.
"Interesting" is much more personal. As some people here may have overheard, I absolutely love melee combat. I've trained in different martial arts from European classical and modern fencing to Japanese and American Karate systems, Brazilian Jiujitsu, good old-fashioned fistcuffs, pretty much anything available to me. So when a game gives me choices like "right kick, left kick, right punch, left punch, throw, block, parry, counter, sidestep, jump, or duck," I find the decision VERY interesting. My dad likes more abstract, metaphorical strategic and tactical decisions, so he likes chess and basketball, and dislikes the fast-paced and literal decision-making in combat. Neither is better, they're just different.
This works nicely with the substance-and-style nature of gameplay; "meaningful" is the substance, and "interesting" is the style. Bear in mind that things like "good graphics" and "cool storyline" register indirectly under the "interesting" umbrella. Solid Snake stopping a nuclear attack by terrorists has nothing to do with fighting Revovler Ocelot or sneaking around behind guards or timing punches just right to catch the ninja just as he gets into range but before he can make his own attack. But it sets a backdrop.
tl; dr: So really, there's a two-part thing right there, and it's very simple, and there's ample room for personal taste, so I'm afraid that the argument that I define what I personally like as universally correct for fun is bullshit. My own answer to "what makes a game fun" makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to my personal tastes.
When a counter "only knocks someone down" it has still done massive damage to them. Templars are way too strong to be killed with only a single counter, so the first counter is always a punch or a kick. Usually, you fight them one-on-one and can counter and then land three "heavy" attacks while they try to get back up. If there are other enemies, you just have to counter them more than once.
I totally fence too
Yeah, I think I should clarify my feelings in light of this. AC has moments of brilliance. The problem is that those moments of brilliance are marred by an overwhelming number of moments of grinding boredom. The assassinations, although way too easy for my taste, were exciting and cool-looking. Some of the in-town stuff had the "Spider-Man" appeal of swooping down and kicking four dudes' asses to save a civilian. The problem is that when you do it ten times in a row, it becomes annoying and boring instead of cool. Especially because the combat and stealth systems are so shallow. It's basically "counter until everyone is dead" and then "press 'blend' and walk away, then climb up a wall and leave."
Yeah. That's absolute shit. That's genuine regression. The AVGN made this point with the Silver Surfer game. "There's never a case when I don't want to fire." So, like, the game should just be on constant auto-fire. When you take the player's decision-making out of combat, you make the combat uninteresting. If I want cinematic combat without having to make meaningful decisions, I will rent a kung-fu movie or turn on Soul Calibur and watch the computer fight itself.
What weapon? My personal preference is epee. I find the rules to be the most "realistic," not that I'll ever need to fight for real with epees or anything. I like sabre as a weapon for the edge and all, but I strongly dislike target area and priority. It's unfortunate that sabre degenerates into a flick-game when you take away the priority stuff.
Yeah, but to their credit, they already made Prince of Persia, and they were going for more realistic-looking combat in this. I really like how they did combat in general, I just think that counters need something to weaken them. Maybe, like, God Of War mini-games or something. Also, counter-attack should probably not be given to you right away. I mean, look at the "dodge" ability! That should clearly be considered a lower-level skill than counter-attacking. I think that just some minor tweaks would help a lot. They'll probably clean it up a lot for the sequel. (I hope.)
Well, that is the traditional method, though. Foil to teach theory and principle, epee is the real weapon. It's kinda like learning Java before C++, to me. (As a game programmer.) Epee is pretty rad; whoever hits first gets the point. If you both hit at the same time, you both get a point. Doesn't matter where you hit, so if someone lunges sloppily, you can stab a leg or a wrist or whatever. No taking turns, no worrying about hitting the chest instead of the arm or whatever.
I went to a tournament in Berkley and watched some of the final epee bouts. The best dude from here was up against some toolbag from Davis who kept going for his foot. Not that being able to hit the foot isn't impressive, but it's basically all the guy did whenever he was a point behind.
I hate the class, however.
Our book goes into detail, which would be nice if it wasn't excessive to the point that it's unnecessary because you're just learning it, and you get bogged down in the needle-fine points and get confused.
Which is why I don't crack the book except to look at example programs, in order to get an idea of how I'm supposed to write the next program.
Actually, despite being Wiggin, you are pretty much doing it right. Programming is something you learn by doing. Read up on stuff, build stuff. Theory is cute and all, but programming (perspective of a game programmer, again) is about making shit that works and works right and works fast. Study examples of working code, modify it, truly understand it, and then you can make your own.
Yeah, we're pretty much on the exact same page here. In the long run, I genuinely enjoyed the game, but not enough to keep me from loaning it to a friend to play and moving on to Mass Effect, which annoyed me a bit, because I was actually interested in what was going on the "present" parts of the game.
Essentially what I've been doing since I took Intro last year.
Apparently, most of the kids in my class copy/paste from the example files on the computers, while I write my shit from scratch in Eclipse.
Maybe that's why I actually know what I'm doing.
Wow. Yeah. You are doing it exactly right, and that really is why you know how to do things. You are better at this than like half of my graduating class.
If I made an error, I preferred finishing my program in Notepad, compiling, getting an error, and counting lines until I figured out what I did wrong.
I have no idea why.
Honestly, writing code is the only thing I could see myself doing for a living, outside of teaching.
I don't know because I learned C first, then added the class-based stuff in C++ to it. I think that it made me a far more efficient programmer. Also because I worked on pre-386 machines. There's something about having to use divisions carefully (they're expensive!) that really makes you cautious and efficient as fuck later on.
Get yourself a business card, my friend, you are programmer. I didn't realize it fully until recently when I said I can't think of anything else I'd rather be doing.
I'm definitely planning on taking more programming classes in college, if I can, in case I end up wanting to switch my major to something along these lines.
If I knew what kinds of majors were available for this, I would probably switch my major by the end of the first semester.
Because teaching isn't looking so viable lately.
And I love sitting down, cracking my knuckles, and cranking out a long string of code in 20 minutes.
The same string of code that takes the other kids 20 minutes to figure out they're supposed to write it.
No he isn't.
Oh wait, you said "bestest".
Yes. Yes, he is.
Not too surprising, most schools I know are switching from the intro language from C++ to Java. Though I kind of wished they'd still use C++ as the base language, mainly because once you learn C++, you pretty much know Java (minus a few syntax issues). Going from Java to C++ is a little trickier because Java hides some maintainence issues.
What kind of jobs are there that I could get into, outside of the game industry?
I really want to start looking at this as an alternative to teaching, and I really don't want to ask in H/A because I don't know who those people are and they scare me.