In response to "Politics in a Vacuum" from The Escapist Forum: Game developers and players engaged in politics? Social scientists should flock to this occurance. Hell, I should flock to this occurance. This is amazingly interesting, mostly because I would assume most parties involved have absolutely no knowledge of politics.
This would be border-edge to one of those "perfect" scenarios many social scientists are attracted to, wherein they actually get to witness the formation of society from a state of nature. Throw in the very odd consumer vs provider interaction, a democratic process based upon complex politics and a historically hierarchical clan-based structure and my intellectual juices (shhh) start bubbling. Kudos on the research, a very good article.
Hardin/Cruse posts on another forum where I frequent. Let me tell you now: He knows the world of EVE like the back of his hand. I mean, really: He wrote a document the size of a very large book detailing the wars and conflict in space, and what went wrong for both CCP, the game design and the alliances respectively. When he put himself up for election on the board, he launched a full-scale, intergalactic campaign to win; something which he heartily pulled off.
Its funny, really: EVE seems to take everything to the next level; from the community to their interaction with the management. In other games, GMs are seen as nigh on Godly figures when they appear in-game, but in EVE it is expected that they get involved in the game and the community; although obviously not abusing their powers to do so. Theoretically, of course, these meetings would have not have needed to take place, for the GMs should know their game from all prospectives if they play and observe. Still, as with all things, it is open to human fallacy, which does little more than to present even greater, intriguing opportunities for interaction between developers and the customers - even if it is basically a glorified popularity contest.
In response to "When Worlds Collide" from The Escapist Forum: Lets be serious though if you could get an eyepiece that only you could see what you were looking at, what are 90% of guys gonna do 90% of the time? Just being realistic, although I wouldn't be against it (I am one of the 10%, we only look it up 80% of the time) because it would be pretty useful
Huh. Odd, I didn't think of sex.
First thing I thought of when reading this is that this would be a huge boon for tourists.
Imagine going to your favourite tourist spots and the augmented reality at the spot would allow for a virtual tour guide instead of those headsets for audio tours they give people now at the very least and full on re-enactments and displays that give you a sense of "then" in virtual and in reality you see the "now". Museums with AR anyone? Finally, why not have AR graffiti art to beautify a city virtually to attract tourists?
Also, aren't the military interesting in AR too for the use of the soldier as a future warrior weapons platform? A second or more set of eyes, added information from various scans and satellite imagery, essentially letting a soldier see through and around walls in real time, target identification and acquisition - of course, any such notion leaves open the idea of hacking or shutting down an enemies' AR to give your side an advantage. Though, what are the chances anyone actually cares enough to load up a soldier with gear that possibly costs considerably to develop, maintain, and support when they still think of them as canon fodder?