| > censorship It is censorship in the sense that the original authors' intention is modified to exclude the 'game' factor, but then .. why is this happening in the first place? Why do you think the editing-OP decided to omit this aspect? > "pushed out of gaming" There are a couple of schools of thought about 'games programmers' and 'game systems' which can be plotted with wide variance, yet have some interesting points of intersection. For example, the 'factoid' that games developers have a high turn-over/rockstar-phase/kidzone aspect, unless your game is making millions, in which case its serious business and only big boys need apply. So 'game ideology' as an industrious, conscious body of knowledge, has the punk-rock factor, wearing a 2000 dollar suit. >> we really don't like to talk about games. Game development as a software ethos, either from consumer or developer side in my opinion, is an interesting quandry. Many times the notion that you are not making a game if you're making, instead, a business app, or a web scraper, or an OS kernel, and so on .. But actually the notion of game is key to all computing. From a technological perspective, we're all just playing games. Even Oracle has its event and frame "inner loop". So I think there's an ugly truth about why we "don't like o talk about games", and it is that there is a zen to the subject. The zen is profitable, and it is also deadly. Keep playing games - no matter where you go and what you do there. Keep making games, too. |
I didn't.