Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Caml productivity.
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: John Max Skaller <skaller@o...>
Subject: Re: Games (Re: [Caml-list] Caml productivity.)
Jonathan Coupe wrote:

>>Chatting with game/CG professionals around me _strengthened_ this
>>impression: the symbolic parts seem even more non-trivial in realistic
>I am a games and realtime 3D professional - and I have to tell you, in the
>nicest way (I hope) this really isn't how things are. I'd suggest that your
>conversations have naturally reflected your own interests. If you want to
>make a balanced assessment of what people do in the real world, try looking
>at some representative books and collections of conference papers - the
>Graphics Gems and Game Gems series would be good starting points.
The issue isn't what is done in the real world, by companies that don't 
really know
how to develop a game, but what *ought* to be done.

It would be nice, for example, if a military game had some small 
resemblance to
actual warfare. Military units have intelligence. They operate with 
stranding orders
with some reason to believe the orders are effective. They move from 
point A to
point B with some kind of common sense.

Now look at the utterly abysmal routing in most military games,
the totally absurd actions units take, etc.

Sorry. The real world isn't a very good model: it's driven by greed,
not by a desire for quality.

John Max Skaller,
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: