Well i know that and agree with what you say. For empyrion at last. For SE.... they hit beta over a year ago and still can't solve their many issues. Still the game only is really enjoyable with mods (at least for me) and ingame programming was the biggest flaw imho. Not per se. If done RIGHT it would have been a great addition to the game. But proper means: every single device and command translated in a graphical interface to be able to use by everybody (and no, no matter what those nerds tell you, programming is NOT basic knowledge). So actually i have to salute Keen for removing programable blocks for the game to experimental. First right move for what felt like decades.
This is like Apple removing 'power user commands' from their OS because too many morons are using it. Just because you dont use something, doesn't mean it should be removed. The thing with the programmable blocks is... you DIDNT HAVE TO USE IT to do all the general stuff in the game. It is there for people who understand code, and could create some really crazy actions and behaviors with. Share it with a blueprint, and others can use those ships/items with the code already installed and running. But with it tossed to experimental... no more great workshop items now. Just run of the mill garbage builds from basic building blocks by a bunch of people who would rather be playing with LEGOs than tinkering in an ENGINEERING game. Oh well... I've written SE off because of so many other issues before this. They shat in their own bed, and made an abysmal product that could have been the best in the world. There is no going back or 'fixing' that game other than a complete change of company and developer team from the ground up.
Sure, asshole players are definitely also an issue, though that can be somewhat ameliorated with enough reasonable players. In any case, an only-player-driven universe is prone to all kinds of instabilities, including those driven by griefers and assholes.
I'd argue that, increasingly, some familiarity with coding is becoming an essential thing in today's world. The interface may not always be a terminal and the language might not always be line-by-line executed, but the future of interacting with our increasingly complex technology is inevitably going to involve programming concepts.
The vast majority of humans can barely develop skills beyond pushing buttons on a laundry machine. That's why the "high tech" has been dumbed down to simplistic gestures on a screen and have people type phonetic messages with their thumbs. Specialists tend to introduce personal biais in their vision of the world, and that's what some programmers do : they think "coding" is interesting because their lives revolve around it, just like some cooks believe all people want to spend hours in front of a counter making a meal, "because everybody has to eat". I would speculate that humanity is slowly but surely following the path towards "Idiocracy" with a slight difference that there is a deepening trench between "casual" people and "specialists", just like there is one between the rich and the poor that also tends to deepen.
Sorry but you are wrong on so many levels. I accept that it is your opinion, but it is nothing more: an opinion. A general GOOD game design works within itself without the need to read more than 2 lines of explanatory text. A good game design especially is when you are able to play the game without the need of others and external sources of any sort of information. And a good game design is for everybody, not only 5% that can do something special such as coding. And if you thing more than 5% of all gamers can code, you are further from reality than you think. The future of technology is first and foremost depending on people writing tons and tons of good code, but on the same level on UI designers to make that new technology accessible to the masses. @Kassonnade Don't use that phrase please. Using the term "dump dow" makes people look really stupid..... and i mean people using the word. There is actually NO benefit to keep things unnecessarily complicated if there is a way to make (just about everything) more intuitive and accessible. So there is actually no such things as dumbing down. Only people stuck in the old days where intuitivity wasn't a thing. Sure there are people liking to calculate complex formulars in there head, but that doesn't make people using a calculator more stupid. Actually you are wrong. In fact latest studies show that in average humanity is getting smarter (more intelligent). The average IQ is higher than a couple of decades ago. What you mean is that there are more idiots showing up subjectively.... and that is correct. There are more idiots that you can see everyday because A) the world is way more connected so you see them pretty much instantly when they do or say something stupid, and B) we are way way way way more people than 100 years ago. More people means potentially more Idiots too. But having more intuitive and less complicated systems is the exact opposite of "dumbing down", they are smart systems. I could argue that a game developer leaves such things of content creation and policing communities as well as explaining their gamesystems to others (i.e. guides, explanations, tools, mods) to their players is just to lazy to make a proper, self explanatory and intuitive game system. Or in form of "player created and controlled" gameworlds, to lazy to make a real game and just wants to provide a game engine (with halves the effort needed)
Ho... so intuitivity was invented recently ? IQ and intelligence are two different things. Are you talking about the amount of so-called "knowledge" people carry in their memory ? I never accept arguments mentioning "studies" without asking to see said studies. I think you are mixing up people and machines. Lots of general statements in your message. Systems may be sophisticated, that doesn't make people smarter. I know old people who know nothing about computers that can repair anything by themselves, and young tech-savvy people that don't know how to change a light bulb. I could say the contrary but that shows there is no such thing as "new generations are smarter than previous ones" just because we have access to more data today than in the past. If people were smarter than in the past they would not let their home planet die under garbage while sending pictures of themselves to others doing the same. It is now that everyone has a cheap mini-computer in his/her pocket, and now that humanity displays the least interest for its future. "Having more intuitive and less complicated systems" is exactly what "dumbing down" means. A "smart system" doesn't spy on its user to try to find a zillion ways to suck money.
Nope. See how old those people make themself look like? Well knowledge is a general term too. Everybody can learn. Even average intelligent people can study and get their master degree. Knowledge is only a part of intelligence. But to come back to what i said: even knowledge of making is doubling faster each year (you know everything we know from the discovery of fire to mirco- and nano tech and Space travel). But intelligence has nothing to do that systems, mechanics and contents of games should be more intuitive and accessible. Well lets ignore that i don't care what you accept and what not, so take my apologies that from the various sources i soak knowledge from i don't always keep track when i have read what and where. But i presented you at least a hint, and if you really really really are interested i am pretty sure you'll find what i talked about. If not.... well that is your loss. But that doesn't make your statement that people generally get more and more stupid is simply false. Simply because more and more knowledge is needed for everyday life and times those things are needed to be learned are shorter. But ok, you don't accept without a source and i keep saying: people using nonsense terms like "dumped down" make themself look stupid (and a little elitest). Oh come on... that is a pretty generalizing picture. It is not mankind in general that is that kind of short sighted. The main fault is the kind of society we live in and the fact that money matters most. I am one of the people saying "A.I.? Bring it... NOW." while others say that learning machines will kill all human if they realize how bad we are for the planet. Why do i say that? Well.... you don't need A.I. to figure out that there is only a handfull of very powerful people that directly or indirectly force literally millions of people to harm the planet for resources and their own personal profit. So IF a future A.I. is killing people that are harmful to the planet and mankind, it will be those few, but surely not all humans. This stupid term again..... dumbing down... *sigh* sorry, but your problem is (which is correctly because it is a problem to mankind in general) money, or making money out of nothing. The problem with the system currently is that it doesn't work that way for all eternity. Higher faster harder has a upper limit before everything collapse. A more intuitive and self explanatory smart system in a GAME (that is what we talk here actually) only does one thing: makes a better game for the majority of people because it makes the game more accessible to a lot more people as if you did keep it complicated and only really playable for a selected few. And to get back to the subject: its a GAME. Most people play games to relax and distract from their ever day life. the challenge seekers are not that many, at least not as many as some might think. And some of them do never get enough of that challenge... actually those people probably need more challenge in real life, maybe a more challenging job or even a project. ;-) :-D As long as people use that childish, stupid, shortsighted term "dumb down" i'll keep saying it makes them look stupid. Simply because they actively try to stop progress in getting smarter systems and mechanics.
The amount of explanation that a game requires depends strongly on its complexity. We've talked about the issue of complexity in games before, and I understand that you and I are looking for different levels of complexity in the games that we play. However, whether a game is good or not has little to do with whether or not you can play it by yourself or without external sources of information, since "good" is a rather subjective term (every player is going to have a different definition of what games they find to be good). I never argued that a game like Empyrion should force people to code. My comment was that, given how dependent our future is on programmable technology, some passing familiarity with how those systems are programmed is probably a very good thing, and thus it would not be amiss to find programming concepts in games. In any case, as I was trying to say, programming is a rather general term for configuring a complex system to do something useful. The range of tasks that can be accomplished depends on how powerful the programming interface is; the speed and ease with which those tasks can be programmed depends on user skill and the interface itself. An intuitive high-level interface with a lot of interpreting logic behind the scenes can let relatively unskilled users accomplish great things, but, as you point out, requires quite a bit of work on the part of the UI designers to realize. I'd also point out that millions (tens or hundreds of millions, maybe?) of people use voice assistants to dictate short messages, set timers and calendar events, and make calls. That's a form of programming that is very accessible and doesn't seem to put people off. Sure, it's pretty simplistic at present, but one only need look to the ship computers in Star Trek to see what that kind of programming interface might evolve into.
Ok i should have been more specific. Programming in terms of writing code. That excludes everything that has a user friendly, intuitive and self explaining graphical interface. And i bet IF they would have been using a programmable block that has a easy to use, intuitive and user friendly graphical interface PLUS the possibility to switch to code writing interface (while both can use the same functions) the programmable block would have been a major success..... well if they could handle their own code at KSH. That is the same for DUAL: they say their LUA scripting in game will be very limited and not offer any extended automatisation or other in game advantages.... why do not translate that limited scripting into a graphical interface that is easy to use and intuitive to learn? That is how that feature would be for EVERYBODY and not only to a hand full of codem.... i mean people that can code/script. Yes that was kind of provocative. But programming in terms of writing lines of codes as scripts or complex programs is NOT suitable for the masses, and in terms of balance hurts every game that utilizes that to the extend it is used. The more freedom and possibility is given the more danger to be a balance nightmare it is, which ends in losing more players and popularity. Some people really underestimate the power of written lines like "if you can not code/program, you'll have a disadvantage in this game" on any online published media has. No matter the extend the influence really has on the gameplay. Adding a feature that only a few can utilize and give them an advantage can quickly stigmatize a game. Proper forward thinking for any possible "gamechanger" is a must.
Fair enough. Then I think we agree that a user-friendly interface to things like automated task handling/dispatching would be useful to have in any game like Empyrion. That's really only the case if the game wasn't self-consistent to begin with, though. Usually the problem with allowing general scripting in a game is that it allows certain tasks to be executed quickly enough that they become gamebreaking (in a way that wouldn't happen if a human player had to execute the various steps that the script automates). And the reason they're gamebreaking is because that part of the game wasn't self-consistent (probably because originally the designers thought it impossible for players to ever be able to execute the required steps manually).
i play both, pvp on SE since the game over there is at least optimized in survival and i play pve on empyrion.
i also HATE how you build ships in creative and survival on SE so in that aspect along Empyrion is better in my opinion.
I don't understand your point here. You have something against old people ? Now you're telling me that intelligence has nothing to do with the way things are designed. That's a very broad and nonsensical statement. Actually it is your loss because you seek to convince me without proper evidence to support your statement. Show me theses "studies" you mention or don't use them: it is not my burden to find the "knowledge" you pretend to hold by randomly searching the Internet. I did not write that, it's merely your interpretation because you equate "knowledge" and "intelligence" (or stupidity when low knowledge). But that surely shows where you're coming from... In other times, other knowledge. The brain did not expand suddenly with the advent of smartphones ! Your pretense that "more and more knowledge is needed for everyday life" is another fallacy that you pull out of your sleeve and that doesn't hold analysis. Maybe you think that everybody makes everything at all times, and that makes "everything" having more "content" today, so "everyone" knows more? This is a caricature and a generalization. Some people can't make proper knots today, even though "people are smarter"... I don't jump in the conspiracy train, I look at plain facts: no one is forcing the masses to buy plastic and to use their car everyday. You are showing the mechanic by which people put the responsibility of their acts on others, to continue spoiling the Earth without feeling too bad. I am not impressed nor interested by peremptory statements based on your speculation. Here I see what you kept in the back of your mind all along : you inferred from my initial answer to @geostar1024 that "dumbing down the high tech" was aimed at asking for more complexity in the game. Go get some coffee... You may have a tendency to blur the line between what is a real "progress" and what is simple "novelty". I will not use your style of indirect insults to throw it back to you, I will simply say that you make many common mistakes in almost every sentence where you equate one concept with another (intelligence = knowledge), where you make up facts (people are smarter today / everyday life requires more knowledge/ etc), when sending me to fetch your "knowledge" instead of doing the work yourself.
Never said that. I said that it has nothing to do with being itelligence if you want a convenient and easy to use system in a game that is cleverly designed. Nope, not my loss. Stay how you are i don't care. But assuming anything about me won't make you win anything. Assumpting much... But somehow i did write things in a way that they are easy to misunderstand. Either that or you like twisting things in a way they were never meant or said. Oh talking about a generalization and look at things separated from each other..... good one. Even golden. :-D Sure everybody is rich can drive a tesla, doesn't have to work where he finds a job to feed their family even if its 30 miles away. And we can all work for companies that don't work with, create or produces stuff that kills the planet.... if just the world would work that way, it would be a better place. you already insulting. A lot of people, by using "dumping down". This term is almost exclusivly used by elitest jerks to make themself look superior above all who want smart game systems that do a lot for them selves. I am not against adding complexity to a game. But i am against adding complexity for the sole sake of adding complexity. And i still stay at my point where a game mechanic that requires making spreadsheets, and open a calculator, getting informations from external sources just to figure out gameplay mechanics actually is bad game mechanic. Smart systems that actually add fun in progressing are good way of adding to the game. Mechanics that are soley there to slow people down for the sake of slowing them down by puzzeling things out outside the actual game (yes, that includes asking on the forum for help) are pretty bad mechanics. Some might like that. A big wide crowd of all kind of players..... highly doubt about that. so we could learn from each other, but we won't. You think i make mistakes in every sentence so do i think about your sentences. So we agree to disagree.
That is what you write now. I make no assumption here: you fail to provide any substance to your affirmations, consequently your credibility goes down. If you try to drown the fish at this point I will mention it, simply. The error you do here is to use a very restrictive example to show that people have no choice to act like they do, while in reality there are numerous options. This shows a lot about you and very little about "the world". And only answered to @geostar1024 regarding his statement concerning programming. You were far and away from that from the start. Agreed. But that's not what I addressed in my initial reply. I do more than "think" you make mistakes: I show them to you and explain them. I can give you tips to get this "knowledge" and spare you the search, even though you don't care showing me your "studies"... This will help you get focus on a topic and stop writing nonsense.
Now you are comparing apple with oranges. What has a using power commands in each and everyones personal OS to do with using something that gives you an edge in a competitive environment of a game? Yes some can make something awesome and if it performs super crazy with unmatched manual power, make all other rely on them... That is a very bad concept. Like how people always try to make others look inferior and themself superior by using childhood terms. ;-) What is wrong with LEGO? It was and still is super successful. But hey, i guess a developer should deney success for the selected few that actually ARE engineers. I have written SE off to for many reasons. Especially making things more complex, more complicated and take longer without creating a real gameplay reason for doing so. To me SE is an overbloaded tech- and physicsdemo with little to no reason to all there separated and fractured gameplay elements.... well and the most interesting parts not funtioning right most of the time. Although i must admit that it was fun for some time to fiddle around with pistons and rotors, using timer blocks, merge blocks and connectors. For a short time at least until i realized that maintaining those big vessels and bases i build will take up a lot of my playtime... if things don't break shortly after hitting a button :-D That and for real cool stuff you have to rely on mods (ramps and towers that don't wobble and break), simply because the games engine isn't really what it promised to be at first.
Sorry.... that is what i always say. i thought that was clear. My credibility i have from you? Oh.... that really puts me in a tough spot. Which all started because of my statement of "programming in not common knowledge in the gaming world in order to PLAY a game". Your "very restrictive example" is reality for the vast majority of people living on this planet. Sure there are options. But sometimes (more often than not) it is either eat or be eaten. Some people make the choice to flee from war, poverty, violence or even hunger. Which isn't right too because if they do they should take care for taking the most ecological way. So no open fire in the night to not freeze to death.... use solar powered heaters. Or people wanting new smartphones are not the ones that cause other people working in mines to dig up rare matrerials often with highly leathel supstances..... Sure, cause and consequences is nothing but an illusion and things always happen independently without ever interfearing with each other. Or one persons wealth will never ever cause other people missery or even to die for it. I want to live in your world, seems almost simple. ;-) And if you took your time to read what this reply was about, we wouldn't have had this discussion. But looking at things isolated is probably better that way. Answering on comments ripped out of context seems like the new internet thing.
lol... "That is what I always say except when I discuss with you"... Exactly. And for other readers as well, quite realistically. I quoted geostar1024, not you, as he was taking the subject off the "gaming" grounds. I touched a sensitive string, didn't I ? My world is the same as yours, you can live in it any way you wish. Just open your eyes and you will see better. Here again, you refer to a quantity without providing evidence (Your "very restrictive example" is reality for the vast majority of people living on this planet). You know how much it is worth, I already told you about that kind of statements. I can tell you with confidence that the vast majority of kids on the planet are not driving cars everyday to go to work. That already takes off a substantial part away from "the vast majority of people". You use another restrictive example to justify people polluting when fleeing the war by proposing it happens "most often than not", knowing perfectly well that out of billions of humans only a few thousands are actively at war at any time, or fleeing wars. Out of these numbers, these people are not polluting each and every minute of the day. You know how much breathable air an average car consumes per day in average, running at average rpm for an average duration of 1 hour ? It consumes as much air as a small village during a whole day. Do people driving cars at work everyday care about this ? I don't think so ; they make up excuses to continue. Do we have other choices ? Of course, but it implies changing many things and people don't want this. We wouldn't have this discussion if you didn't believe it was worth having it, unless you have a serious problem. You know nothing about the time I took to "read this reply" so your motivation to pursue the discussion has to be elsewhere.
Nope... in general. You like to repeat yourself every time you state soemthing? Because you speak for everybody.... Always a good point to make ;-) context.... he used a general, real world example. But we are in a GAME-forum. sure we always have choices. Since there is no public transport from where i live to the place i work i have the choice to either take my car or quit my job. Choices are there, but in reality only a very few have a **** lot of choices while the big "bad" rest has to stay with very little. All of your cherry picking arguments do not reflect reality in the slightest. Simply because they can not solved and be looked at separately. And trust me, i would love to live in a better world where nobody has to suffer anything, not even nature while providing everything essential for everybody and everything. There is just this one minor thing we need to change: human nature. And the reason with human nature being bad sometimes has nothing to do with less intelligence. Actually most destructive people gaining a lot personally are pretty intelligent. They just use it for their own purpose instead of the greater good. Do you mind? I can't. But since we do not live in a utopia where everybody is equal and has the same chances and goals.... naaaa i fear your little theory is nothing but a theory. A nice one, but not a realistic one. But maybe it helps you: mankind can not destroy nature on this planet. Nature / life itself starts over again after we humans are long gone. ;-) Now as you speak of it..... what could be my "serious problem"? Would be interesting to know. ;-)
