Dareb wrote:

What really bothers me is that you're all too afraid to do this, you're young now, why wait?

Because I like getting games done.

My answer is simple: lack of skill, interest, and will to do anything.

so.... in order to get games done.... you do nothing.

wow, thats really... ignorant of what people can accomplish

Dareb wrote:

yes but are they byond or otherwise?

Difference being what, exactly?

He knows what he wants to do, and he does it, as opposed to sitting around wondering why no one's doing it, and dreaming that some day he will some day be a part of some grand design that he hadn't actually figured out the details to.

Dareb wrote:

Sigh...

I see many games, of different styles.. persistant this, quality that.. roleplay this, full world... promise... garauntee.. BULL!!

Now, this is really bugging me.. with all the people on byond, Including dantom we could all just come together at a sort of convention and actually perform something never before done. we could all form a group of people learning eachothers skills and sharing their views in order to create an online game.

What really bothers me is that you're all too afraid to do this, you're young now, why wait?

I don't think fear is the limiting factor; it's realism.
You see, these big grandiose game projects tend to have problems of scale: One person usually can't do it alone, small groups generally lack the range and amount of talent needed to finish, and big groups derail easily and never get much of anything done. Too many of the people posting on Classified Ads don't understand the problems inherent in big groups.

And if you're talking about doing a game in C++ or such, outside of BYOND, I have to wonder why people in the community would. This is, after all, the BYOND community; it makes more sense to program in that, particularly when so many of the difficult details of the game (display, movement, input, saving, online connections) are handled automatically in DM.

Back to the group problem, Heinlein's Prof once said that more than three people can't even order a pizza; he was right. Of course, he was talking about organizing cells in an underground resistance movement, but the fact of the matter is that a large group will tend to move in too many directions at once; it will rarely go anywhere, and often fractures under stress. This isn't analagous to software companies, because there's a definite hierarchy of authority, and people have a responsibility to meet deadlines.
Thinking of Heinlein makes me wonder if a cell-based project would work; if you could get close-knit groups of three people (i.e., they have to work together a lot, not just be named to the project), and assign them to one task like a specific group of icons or item design (stats and descriptions), then you might get somewhere. But the problem is finding groups of people who work that well together; I'm basically talking about each cell being a group closer than the DDT. Again, here's one place where software companies have an advantage: They can set up such a structure, and group people that way, because they have plenty of people they know are willing to do it.

Lummox JR

The other advantage that software companies have is that the "members" of the company have agreed to perform according to the desires of some overarching vision, structure, or person in exchange for compensation. It's not necessary for every person to agree to every detail of the project, because they have agreed to the job as a whole.

Dareb's vision, on the other hand, is a group of people under no obligation to each other or to the project as a whole. Because no immediate benefits are provided, anyone is free to leave at any time without loss of benefit, and anyone is free to subvert their little corner of the project at will by making extreme demands or simply being perverse (i.e., coding it 'your way' regardless of what may have been agreed upon.)

Love of an ideal game won't keep a group together, because no two people's vision will mesh completely, and in such a group, no one has any motivation to sacrifice their own vision. Sure, everyone will recognize that sacrifices must be made, compromises must be made, but each person's attitude will be, 'Why should it be mine that gets compromised?' In a small project, with shorter term goals, the project could be completed before these problems become critical, but a long-term project for a large game, they will be inescapable.

Actual software companies combine two powerful motivators: money (representing resources necessary for comfort and survival) and obligation (you agree to do a job, your ability to deliver on that agreement reflects upon your own worth). Employees are willing to set aside their individual visions because they've agreed to at the outset, to the extent that it's necessary to do the job.

I wouldn't expect Dareb to be able to grasp this concept, though. As he is all too fond of pointing out himself, he has a deficiency which prevents him from doing work when his only motivation is the fact that he's agreed to do it in exchange for set compensation. I'd be really leery of working on any project that he's part of, or accept help from him on any project... someone who bugs out on work when they're being paid isn't likely to be any more reliable when they're not.

Well, now I know why companies only hire college graduates.

yes, but unless you plan on completing LivingDead, that cant be counted.