Archive for October, 2011
Gaming hit 10k questions yesterday, and what’s most impressive about that number is actually how small it is.
If you look at the site directory sorted by questions, you’ll see that Gaming ranks at a measly #11 in the Stack Exchange network by total number of questions. That’s not bad since we’re up to 68(!) sites, but it’s not exactly blowing everything else away. It’s a solid site, but not quite on its way to overtaking that other Q&A site.
It’s only when you start looking at traffic that things get interesting. Sorting by visits per day, Gaming jumps up to #6 — not too shabby considering that four of those are the original sites that had some serious advantages when they launched. In fact, it would be #5 if iOS5 hadn’t just come out and temporarily catapulted Apple to the #5 spot. more »
I got to play Rage as part of the Promotional Grant, however Jeff put a small dent in my enthusiasm with the following tweets:
Warning: Id’s Rage is very, very bad IMHO. Neat tech, terrible game. Well, there goes $60.. I say “bad” because I have absolutely no motivation to keep playing Rage after 2 hours in (I loved Doom3). The tech really IS amazing tho.
Granted, two hours is hardly enough to judge an entire game, but I can see where he’s coming from. I have been ‘enjoying’ myself so far, but its surely not flawless. As Jeff mentioned, the tech makes it look great. Great and realistic lighting, massive environments
But I have a feeling this is mostly skin deep. What do I mean by that? Physics engines in games like Half-Life 2 have spoiled us, but I hate how objects in Rage are so static. You see a table covered with papers and other objects, but no amount of movement and bumping against the table will make them move and feel ‘alive’.