5 ms·

"Why is WoW a front for a morally questionable bunny labor operation? The short version is, programmers’ time is limited, and NPCs’ time is not. Programmer time

"Why is WoW a front for a morally questionable bunny labor operation? The short version is, programmers’ time is limited, and NPCs’ time is not. Programmer time is extremely valuable, and most of the ‘stuff’ that can be done in a game can be done by NPCs,” said Chapman. “NPCs already have to support things like pathing, casting spells, using weapons, doing various actions to other NPCs, etc. So, while you could in theory have a programmer separately implement every ‘effect’ you wanted in the game with some minor benefit, if you already have a class of thing in a game that can solve your problem, it’s a better use of time to use the existing system.”" I am sorry, but it still is just bad design, if you have to missuse a different class. So strictly economically speaking yes, after the system was already running, it might have been cheaper to go with it than redesign - but the initial design flaw is still a flaw. But they still made lots of money this flawed system, though, which is a good reminder, that the most important thing for any product is usually, does it work?

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Honestly, I see it as accidentally good design. Take the "laser turret pointer" mentioned earlier. If you're not doing an optics simulation, but engage in the magical thinking (usual in storytelling) and treat the impact point as the entity of interest, then... making the impact point another actor on the scene suddenly makes perfect sense. Between the article and the comments, a lot of things bunnies/spectral cats/minions are known to be used for make perfect sense, and I'd consider explicitly planning for it when designing a new game. Still: > But they still made lots of money this flawed system, though, which is a good reminder, that the most important thing for any product is usually, does it work? That is a very good point, especially in videogames/entertainment. Reminds me of the "first law of 3D game graphics" I read somewhere - "if it looks good, it's good - no matter the amount of cheating going on".

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Honestly, I see it as accidentally good design. Take the "laser turret pointer" mentioned earlier. If you're not doing an optics simulation, but engage in the magical thinking (usual in storytelling) and treat the impact point as the entity of interest, then... making the impact point another actor on the scene suddenly makes perfect sense. Between the article and the comments, a lot of things bunnies/spectral cats/minions are known to be used for make perfect sense, and I'd consider explicitly planning for it when designing a new game. Still: > But they still made lots of money this flawed system, though, which is a good reminder, that the most important thing for any product is usually, does it work? That is a very good point, especially in videogames/entertainment. Reminds me of the "first law of 3D game graphics" I read somewhere - "if it looks good, it's good - no matter the amount of cheating going on".