Not to seem crass, but one would think if his goal was to change games, he might have spent more time actually making them. Being inactive for 20 years (or two stripes in his vase), probably hasn't helped. For all his talk of making sure he doesn't waste a day, it seems he's wasted a lot.
I see this more as a warning story than anything. If you truly love something and want to contribute: Never stop.
The irony is that during his time of not contributing, others have risen and passed him, contributing more to games than he ever did.
The reality is that I had to google him to find out who he was. That is not someone who is committed to his craft.
I don't think he stopped -- he tried to pull the industry in a direction he wanted to see it go and has not (yet) been successful.
When Java first started appearing on cell phones in the early 00's I tracked him down and sent him an email asking if he was interested in porting some of his old hits to a phone as they were about as powerful as a 80's PC. He responded with the source code of one I said I enjoyed, Eastern Front 1942, and said go for it. I spent a couple hours trying to make sense of the 6502 Assembly code and quit.
I had to google him to find out who he was. That is not someone who is committed to his craft.
What!?
Google is in many ways a measure of popularity and relevance, not commitment. Chris and the games industry have gone in completely different directions. He is no longer interested in writing games for the same reasons that I no longer play games.
He's off writing what he loves. Saying that others have contributed far more is a lot like comparing DHH to _why and suggesting that DHH has contributed far more to Ruby than _why. Yes, of course, but how does that diminish _why?
Well, maybe. If I'm a musician, and I want to be relevant, I can drag the world over to my music or drag my music over to the world. It may be that becoming "relevant" means making pop music.
I can't speak for him, but if he wants to stay true to his vision, the most likely outcome is to influence the world to come a little closer to where he is. Dragging himself over to where the games industry is today would mean making games that aren't very Chris Crawford at all.
"Not to seem crass, but one would think if his goal was to change games, he might have spent more time actually making them."
He did. He was trying to develop a new form of game. It didn't work, but he tried. At least he was following his vision rather than trying to churn out vapid, ephemeral clones of Angry Birds or Doom or whatever, chasing after money.
Comments
Not to seem crass, but one would think if his goal was to change games, he might have spent more time actually making them. Being inactive for 20 years (or two stripes in his vase), probably hasn't helped. For all his talk of making sure he doesn't waste a day, it seems he's wasted a lot.
I see this more as a warning story than anything. If you truly love something and want to contribute: Never stop.
The irony is that during his time of not contributing, others have risen and passed him, contributing more to games than he ever did.
The reality is that I had to google him to find out who he was. That is not someone who is committed to his craft.
His games pushed them limits and set the standards for what was possible with a computer game in the early 80's.
He literally wrote the book on how to write games for the Atari 800 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Re_Atari
I don't think he stopped -- he tried to pull the industry in a direction he wanted to see it go and has not (yet) been successful.
When Java first started appearing on cell phones in the early 00's I tracked him down and sent him an email asking if he was interested in porting some of his old hits to a phone as they were about as powerful as a 80's PC. He responded with the source code of one I said I enjoyed, Eastern Front 1942, and said go for it. I spent a couple hours trying to make sense of the 6502 Assembly code and quit.
That's what 6502 emulators are for! Do you still have the source?
It is now online: http://www.atariarchives.org/APX/showinfo.php?cat=20095
Porting it was a good idea when the Motorola RAZR was the new hotness, but it doesn't hold up as well now that the processor in my iPhone is almost as fast as the one in my laptop: http://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-400-800-xl-xe-eastern-f...
I had to google him to find out who he was. That is not someone who is committed to his craft.
What!?
Google is in many ways a measure of popularity and relevance, not commitment. Chris and the games industry have gone in completely different directions. He is no longer interested in writing games for the same reasons that I no longer play games.
He's off writing what he loves. Saying that others have contributed far more is a lot like comparing DHH to _why and suggesting that DHH has contributed far more to Ruby than _why. Yes, of course, but how does that diminish _why?
I would argue that relevance is exactly what he's looking for though.
Well, maybe. If I'm a musician, and I want to be relevant, I can drag the world over to my music or drag my music over to the world. It may be that becoming "relevant" means making pop music.
I can't speak for him, but if he wants to stay true to his vision, the most likely outcome is to influence the world to come a little closer to where he is. Dragging himself over to where the games industry is today would mean making games that aren't very Chris Crawford at all.
"Not to seem crass, but one would think if his goal was to change games, he might have spent more time actually making them."
He did. He was trying to develop a new form of game. It didn't work, but he tried. At least he was following his vision rather than trying to churn out vapid, ephemeral clones of Angry Birds or Doom or whatever, chasing after money.