CROW3 wrote: » It's funny, some folks see cheesecake as a shared compromise in the Pie Cake Venn Diagram. However, I see cheesecake as neither cake nor pie, so it's over there in it's own little fenced off area, never to be touched. As you can see, we live in a very odd universe.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » It's funny, some folks see cheesecake as a shared compromise in the Pie Cake Venn Diagram. However, I see cheesecake as neither cake nor pie, so it's over there in it's own little fenced off area, never to be touched. As you can see, we live in a very odd universe. Blasphemy! lol It's clearly a pie! But seriously, if it's made in a pastry based shell it's a pie. If not, it's a cake. The main difference is how pastry dough is made versus cake batter. Now I'm thinking about pancakes... mmm
CROW3 wrote: » Ok, here’s another question for Steven - care of John Hodgeman. If you had to choose a superpower between flying or invisibility, what would you pick? 🧐
Ravel wrote: » Does he like that other AoC game that much that he named his game to have the same acronym.
daveywavey wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » It's funny, some folks see cheesecake as a shared compromise in the Pie Cake Venn Diagram. However, I see cheesecake as neither cake nor pie, so it's over there in it's own little fenced off area, never to be touched. As you can see, we live in a very odd universe. Blasphemy! lol It's clearly a pie! But seriously, if it's made in a pastry based shell it's a pie. If not, it's a cake. The main difference is how pastry dough is made versus cake batter. Now I'm thinking about pancakes... mmm But, cheesecake isn't pastry, it's got a biscuit base. You smash up the biscuit you're using (gingernuts are absolutely the best for this - don't let anyone tell you it's digestives), and then you cook it off in some butter so it'll mush together, and then you use that mixture as the base of the cheesecake. It's not a pastry pudding.
daveywavey wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Ok, here’s another question for Steven - care of John Hodgeman. If you had to choose a superpower between flying or invisibility, what would you pick? 🧐 Flying, for sure. It just has way more practical applications.
Hoguti wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Ok, here’s another question for Steven - care of John Hodgeman. If you had to choose a superpower between flying or invisibility, what would you pick? 🧐 Flying, for sure. It just has way more practical applications. It depends on limitations and their affects. How high can I fly? Do physics such as air density and atmosphere composition affect me? Can I breathe in thinning atmosphere? Am I immune to thermal changes such as cold? How fast can I fly? Do I have to flap my arms? These are important factors in such a decision. Invisibility - Am I invisible to thermal imaging? Do I have to be naked or does my gear, tools, and clothing cloak with my body? Is it “Predator style” cloaking or truly invisible? If I bleed, urinate, defecate does it become visible as it leaves my body? More information is required for such an important decision.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Superpowers are based around limitations of reality and what is normal. What is consider "super" based on subject. Think about superman. His race isn't considered super to themselves? that's just normal. So what would be super powers to them? A similar perception could be related to god(s) and aliens. Depending on mythology/religion, who is to say gods are not aliens and vice versa. Based on the fiction of superman and other fictional stories, some are technically aliens and considered god-like compared to the control sample being a human. So technically, a human getting wings anatomically correct to allow them to properly fly would be considered a superior form. This would imply that it could be a super power depending how far on the spectrum of super powers one would like to explore in relation to control sample being an realistic average human. It may not be as superior as magical and/or superman's gravity and physic defying ability regardless of environment but it could still be considered a super human power. One could also debate that superpowers are just a reality not yet discovered as they are considered fiction outside of our normal perception and reality.
CROW3 wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Superpowers are based around limitations of reality and what is normal. What is consider "super" based on subject. Think about superman. His race isn't considered super to themselves? that's just normal. So what would be super powers to them? A similar perception could be related to god(s) and aliens. Depending on mythology/religion, who is to say gods are not aliens and vice versa. Based on the fiction of superman and other fictional stories, some are technically aliens and considered god-like compared to the control sample being a human. So technically, a human getting wings anatomically correct to allow them to properly fly would be considered a superior form. This would imply that it could be a super power depending how far on the spectrum of super powers one would like to explore in relation to control sample being an realistic average human. It may not be as superior as magical and/or superman's gravity and physic defying ability regardless of environment but it could still be considered a super human power. One could also debate that superpowers are just a reality not yet discovered as they are considered fiction outside of our normal perception and reality. Heh. The second effect of this question is exactly where you went, let's call it the 'superpower fine print.' The ability to fly would allow someone without any changes to them physically be able to fly at a thousand miles per hour. Simple as that. If you haven't guessed, this isn't just a question about invisibility or flying.
CROW3 wrote: » Hm… is that what I’m indicating? It might be possible you’re over-thinking this. 😆
McMackMuck wrote: » Hi Steven, How do you balance the pressures of running such a large project with the need for your "inner child" to have fun along the way? We've seen plenty of game studio CEOs over the years that are largely disconnected with the creative process and just focus on the finances. What keeps your sense of enjoyment and enthusiasm at such a high level in a process that must have a large amount of technical grind to work through?
JustVine wrote: » McMackMuck wrote: » Hi Steven, How do you balance the pressures of running such a large project with the need for your "inner child" to have fun along the way? We've seen plenty of game studio CEOs over the years that are largely disconnected with the creative process and just focus on the finances. What keeps your sense of enjoyment and enthusiasm at such a high level in a process that must have a large amount of technical grind to work through? There is a huge difference between a ceo and a creative director. Big companies have finance focused ceo's because big companies have shareholders and debt. Steven has both roles and is the largest 'shareholder' in that most of the game is funded off his own money. He's the person he needs to please. Being involved as the creative director even this deep in the development process is definitely part of how he keeps his passion alive. It's a very hands on job with a lot of people sharing ideas with you. Ceo's are more relationship and structure focused. Less about hands on solutions. I think one of my biggest take aways for how he handles the technical grind is that he actually takes an interest in learning the technical aspects like how they start a build or how servers work or what the ai bugs look like. He clearly makes a focused effort to not just 'let it be someone else's problem.' He clearly listens to his people enough to be explained these very technical grinds and makes it his job to know. Good CEOs do this but it's not that common. Once you understand the technical problem it's less an obstacle in /your/ way and more so a challenge for the team to tackle together which is less grindy than the alternative (this is me making an assumption about his mindsets but I am fairly confident in it.) He is also pretty vocal about the way he approaches company culture. Game nights, dnd, magic, just generally being personable with the staff and taking an interest in their interests. It's an indy company so the culture requires being more of a people person than a ceo at a big company needs to be. Staff morale affects productivity directly. He is a part of the staff and keeping 'childlike wonder' and a willingness to explore in the whole staff is key to avoiding burnout in creative oriented professions. Maintaining a sense of togetherness keeps cohesion up and friction lower which keeps that 'wonder' from getting bogged down in petty politics or the grind of technical obstacles. On top of that he is still a gamer. Creative jobs require constant input from the outside world to keep you charged up and fresh with ideas. Finance focused professions less so. There is a lot more of a feeling that there solved solutions in finance (which is less true than people think but eh.) He definitely still games regularly. So yeah I know your question was for Steven, but watching him in q&a and other interviews makes this answer really obvious to me due to my own professional background.
