Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8305522" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes, they are answerable.&nbsp; But until they demonstrate that they've answered it, there's no reason for confidence.&nbsp; If we had evidence that choice came from understanding the domain, instead of just luck, that would be a good sign.&nbsp; None of these are actual successes yet.&nbsp; They are projects that haven't yet failed.&nbsp; There's a difference.&nbsp; A success is good code that ships, not things that are not-awful in previews.So, you're not the only one who works in software around here, so I'm going to push back a bit on that - it is complicated and complex.&nbsp; Yes, many companies do similar work, but also many fail to do it.&nbsp; Moderate data complexity plus moderate customization per user, millions of users, three-nines uptime and a reasonable UX design is not a cakewalk of a project.The number one way to make sure a project blunders is to be overconfident about it.As soon as you have two systems in active development become dependent on each other, things start to suck, fast.&nbsp; &quot;You can't release that physical book that you've already sent off to the printer because we've got persistent issues implementing a class on the software side,&quot; is NOT a conversation we want them to have to have.I think I would prefer to not see the software side have a lick of input into the RPG game development.&nbsp; I am still more than willing to use paper and pencil, so I want game developers to go with whatever works for the game, without concern of how hard it may be on the software side.&nbsp; As soon as they are linked, you're apt to see game design hobbled to the digital implementation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8305522, member: 177"] Yes, they are answerable. But until they [I]demonstrate[/I] that they've answered it, there's no reason for confidence. If we had evidence that choice came from [I]understanding the domain[/I], instead of just luck, that would be a good sign. None of these are actual successes yet. They are projects that haven't yet failed. There's a difference. A success is good code that ships, not things that are not-awful in previews. So, you're not the only one who works in software around here, so I'm going to push back a bit on that - it is complicated and complex. Yes, many companies do similar work, but also many [I]fail[/I] to do it. Moderate data complexity plus moderate customization per user, millions of users, three-nines uptime and a reasonable UX design is not a cakewalk of a project. The number one way to make sure a project blunders is to be overconfident about it. As soon as you have two systems in active development become dependent on each other, things start to suck, fast. "You can't release that physical book that you've already sent off to the printer because we've got persistent issues implementing a class on the software side," is [I]NOT[/I] a conversation we want them to have to have. I think I would prefer to not see the software side have a lick of input into the RPG game development. I am still more than willing to use paper and pencil, so I want game developers to go with whatever works for the game, without concern of how hard it may be on the software side. As soon as they are linked, you're apt to see game design hobbled to the digital implementation. [/QUOTE]

Verification