RTigger

I don't understand the coupling aspect. You're moving from one dependency (URIs) to another (implementation of discoverability). Until HATEOAS/discoverability/rest links themselves are a standard, you're just binding to the way that API decided to do it. And that in my mind is a much bigger dependency than a URI string.

Fair enough - I haven't actually used a hypermedia API (short of OData). I really can't see the documenting point though. Sure, you get a list of actions that you can perform, but you get those in a response object. Some people compare this to "intellisense documentation", but really it's more like having to decompile the library to figure out what's going on. You have to do something extra in order to figure out what the next step is, rather than just having it available. Also, I'm pretty sure any API that is currently "discoverable" probably also has a full suite of documentation. Why do the same thing twice?

Not sure about other languages, but most of the client apps I make don't use hardcoded urls - they use a base API url, and then modifications for specific resources. The RestSharp library for C# is a great example of how this works, and even in javascript it's not hard to refactor things so they use a base url and append path & parameters based on the models you're working with.

I'm not arguing the simplicity of it, although it would be more simple to implement if we agreed on a standard like in the original article. I'm just arguing the value.

I blogged about this same idea in response to a different article 3 months ago. Seems like the hypermedia discussion keeps coming up. Here's my response article: http://rtigger.com/blog/2012/08/27/discovering-the-value-in-...

TL;DR - there's no value in discoverable (hypermedia) APIs short of some generic API browser that end users don't really want.

The games in that list that are turn based include Dominion, Lords of Waterdeep, and Stone Age.

We stick to 1-hour games mostly because of the lunch hour restriction, if you're spacing the game out over a series of days it might be more interesting to play some of the longer games since it doesn't matter how long you take anyways.

The BGG description makes it sound like an aggressive form of Race for the Galaxy - same concept, but you have to attack worlds instead of just "settle" them.

I've been wanting to try Core Worlds, and I haven't heard of the other two - I'll have to check them out!

Love this article. I think the end captures it perfectly - there's really nothing else that gets the same social interaction as board games.

At work we use board games on a daily basis for team building, usually play a 1-hour-or-less game over every lunch. It's amazing how quickly you get to know someone and how those relationships build and blend into your work as well. You can see how someone teaches a new person how to play the game, how they interact with alliances and respond to attacks from other people.

Some 1-hour games we play for reference, if anyone's interested:

Dominion - Already discussed in another post :) (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36218/dominion)

7 Wonders - Drafting based card game where you interact with your immediate neighbours (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/68448/7-wonders)

Race for the Galaxy - Card game where action choices enable other players (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/28143/race-for-the-galaxy)

Lords of Waterdeep - D&D themed worker placement game (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/110327/lords-of-waterdeep)

Stone Age - Most "german" game of this list, worker placement and resource gathering with dice (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/34635/stone-age)

Space Alert - co-op game where the main game mechanic is "communication" (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38453/space-alert)

Galaxy Trucker - fun tile-based spaceship construction game (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31481/galaxy-trucker)

The Resistance - 2 out of the 5 players are secretly spies (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41114/the-resistance)

I wrote this list out in a bit more detail on my website: http://rtigger.com/blog/2012/12/14/board-games-are-great/

I'm a fan of whiteboarding. I have a bunch of headings for projects I'm working on, and under each of them I have a list of small tasks. Every time I sit down to work on a project, I pick one and a task and go at it.

Oh, hey, look at that. Thanks for uncovering that. And the games I talked about came out after 2006, so maybe they were inspired by the article :)

(commenting here since the author's forum is down)

There's a few points on here I'd like to debate:

- I haven't played an RTS recently, but the last time I dived into the genre there was lots of innovation: World in Conflict had an entirely new resource-based deployment system, Warhammer 40k Dawn of War and Company of Heroes both employed brand-new "capture and hold" territory-based gameplay. You could argue that League of Legends and DOTA both contribute to this genre as well.

- The author mentions several times that they didn't have the time or resources to spend on map creation. Level design is a pretty important aspect of any game development - maybe the Hard Vacuum game would've taken off if they had content?

- "A team like this today can not even hope to create a major blockbuster game". See: decent indie studios all over the world. Maybe it's just that the definition of "major game" has changed since the 90's.

While I agree with the main premise of the article, that game designers need to take a critical, uninfluenced look at the genres they design games for, it feels like the author hasn't attempted to play a game in the last 10 years.

I ended up writing a blog post in response to this: http://rtigger.com/blog/2012/11/22/design-standards-vs-code-...

Synopsis: I like Michael Feathers’ comment that having Design Standards is much more valuable than Code Standards, but they need to be reviewed regularly in order to prevent stagnation and much of the same detriments mentioned in the OP.

This reminds me of the codeless code - obviously fictional stories, but written in such a way to make commentary on design patterns and practices in software development. They make for a very entertaining read, and are excellent at driving the point home.

http://thecodelesscode.com/case/45 as an example.

Doesn't the "C" in MVC stand for Controller? Other than that, great tutorial. I've been using backbone professionally for about a year now, and having something like this in the beginning definitely would've helped :)