Defend The < Insert Anything >!

Happy New Year! It's been a while since I last posted but I've started a few other posts, and will hopefully will be getting them out of the tube sometime soon. 

When I was younger, my dad, who was in the military, told me that whenever the Army is going to attack a fortified position, they always tried to have a 3 to 1 advantage on the defenders, to minimize their casualties. This is because it is much easier to hold ground than it is to gain it, especially if you know the lay of the battlefield better (or even fortified it yourself). You can concentrate your resources in certain chokepoints, and gain significant advantages on your adversaries. Unless taken by surprise, it is very easy for a defensive position to hold back wave after wave of attackers.

I think that this is one of the primary reasons that the "Tower Defense" style of games is getting very popular, especially in the casual/mobile gaming scene. Usually termed as "Strategy", "Action Strategy", or something similar, these games have a very basic premise: you've got a thing, the bad guys want to blow up your thing, don't let them blow up your thing. It's actually quite ingenious the way game designers have kind of spun us on our heads. Back in the days of yore, the player was always attempting to get past the defenses, rescue someone or something, or blow something to smithereens. Now, players are tasked with keeping out all those pesky interlopers, though the basic characterizations are the same.

What do I mean by that, you ask. Well, when one character was able to singlehandedly slaughter the entire Russian army with nothing but a toothbrush, some people called that "unrealistic." However, when that single person is tasked with repelling wave after wave of robotic archer demons, that's much more believable.

Like in my post about zombies, people who play video games like to suspend disbelief far enough to accept the game world, the (usually ridiculous) story, and the mystical powers that they are somehow imbued with. However, granting a modicum of realism, such as having them set up defenses, and actively engaging swarms of enemies, allows them to feel empowered, but not invincible. When the player feels like they can do anything with little or no consequences, the game breaks down somewhat, as the player tears through the levels, unconcerned about what will become of their avatar.

That's all I have to say on the subject, don't worry, I promise that my next post will have some code in it. ;-P

The Analysis of the Dead

In this past week's Zero Punctuation (I should really stop getting my blog ideas from it, I'll work on that), Yahtzee remarked that besides Pirates, Monkeys, and Ninjas, Zombies were perhaps the most popular thing among "nerds". Specifically gaming nerds. Yes, the "legitimacy" of zombies in popular culture is growing every year. What used to just be a cheap horror movie effect has actually been used to create artsy, compelling narratives and games. Need proof? Check out "Fido."

Sure, zombies are getting big. Pirates got big, Ninjas got big, monkeys...I think their time has passed as well. Zombies seem to be sticking around for a bit longer though. It's probably partly due to the whole "decomposing" thing. All joking aside, what makes nerds, a generally erudite and intolerant bunch, so happy to have an antagonist that is slow, dim-witted, operates in hordes, and attempts to eat brains?
Hey, wait a second, I think there might be something there.
Zombies are the exact opposite of what a stereotypical nerd wants to be. They're barely above fungi when it comes to IQ, and have an unstoppable need to attack those that aren't one of themselves. Is it just me, or does this sound exactly like the kids that made fun of you in high school because you'd rather read than watch "Grey's Anatomy"? In fact, when you think about it, what do zombies usually want to eat? Brains? What's the only way to kill them? Kill their brains? If someone was coming up with these metaphors, they weren't digging very deep (probably about 6 feet). 
What naturally follows the intelligence disparity is the common criticism nerds have for "normal" people, that they act like sheep, meandering pointlessly around in herds. Or hordes. Used to social exile, imposed either by self or by others, nerds generally scoff at being part of a large group. They don't want to be following the trends that everyone else follows, because everyone else is stupid, and probably wrong. If you hadn't noticed, this is where the intolerance comes out. Although they commonly accept people who are "different" into their ranks, many nerds find non-nerds to be unbearable. Therefore, any nerd anathema is most definitely going to exist in some sort of large group. This serves another purpose as well. By making their antagonists a seething mass, each individual is deidentified, and it doesn't really matter who's head you're having to lop off to get to the rescue zone. It could be your old gym teacher, that cute girl who said you smelled funny when you asked her out, anyone. 
All that being said, I have to say that I'm still a zombie fan. Although I like to think of myself as a very tolerant person, I'd definitely agree that part of my liking of the zombie metaphor is a bit of distrust and dislike of the general public. Not exactly as a mass of individuals, but the whole societies themselves. To me, the zombie hordes represent the selfish, immutable cultures that are sending all of us to hell in a handbasket, finally imploding upon themselves, making way for a new world, while still representing major obstacles to that world as they slowly rot away.
Or maybe I'm just hungry for BRAIIINS.

Thoughts on Advertising

This is actually a topic that I've been thinking about for a while now, going back to a conversation I had at with Corvus Elrod at his "moving to the West Coast" party. We were discussing advertising in games, and generated a lot of interesting points. As a storyteller, it is anathema for him to see anything that pulls a player out of the game experience, and have them thinking about products in the real world. I agree with this, to a point. When one thinks of the rise of casual games, and the free product business model, it has to be conceded that advertising is one of the main revenue streams (and therefore driver of) the games industry. Armor Games was a company that I though had nothing but cheesy, vapid fare, until I was given a disk by the people of the Indie Games Showcase. Some of their offerings, particularly in the puzzle category (which I usually avoid), blew my mind with their innovations. This company, which is producing quality (though flash) games, is completely supported by the ads on their site (as far as I can tell). 

However, I just bought a new cell phone (a Google G1, in fact, and I love it), and got my first telemarketing call on it a few days afterward. Rather than encouraging me to buy whatever product they were hocking, all that call did was remind me to add my number to the "Do Not Call" list. So, the real question here is, why don't I mind unsolicited advertising next to games I play online, or even in my email, but there's a national response to telemarketing and spamming?

One word: Interference.

If advertising interferes with what you're trying to do, then it's a problem. Calling my phone, or sending me email, wastes time that I would otherwise spend doing other things. Interrupt me, and you're not hooking me as a customer. If I'm already on a website (or watching TV, or at some sort of sporting event), I'm an audience member already. If I happen to look at an ad that is up while I'm waiting for the next play, that's not interfering with what I'm trying to do, it's not breeding any resentment in me. In fact, if it's entertaining enough, I might even be glad it's there. Just look at how many funny/amazing commercials have been posted, by random people, up on YouTube. I readily admit that I would not buy Brawndo if they hadn't gone with an over-the-top, hilarious ad campaign.

Personally, I have no problem with advertising. In its most basic form, it's just trying to get you to buy something. That's fine, if we didn't buy things, we wouldn't really have an economy. Buying things drives innovation, and makes our lives easier. I even don't have a problem with targeted advertising. Some people say it's an invasion of privacy, and it is slightly, but personally, I'd rather not be pitched Depends while I'm checking my email. I see nothing wrong with companies collecting information about buying habits, customer satisfaction and whatnot. It's all supposed to make things more efficient and convenient.

However, if advertising gets too pervasive, too omnipotent, then we have a problem.

Dealing with Null or "All" Parameters in MS SQL Reporting Services

I finally had something happen to me at work that I can add to this blog. Oh happy day, I feel as if I might faint.

Either way, I've recently become the SSRS "rock star" at my office, where even my bosses are stopping by and asking me questions about how to get their queries/formatting to work. It's not as glamorous as I thought it would be, and the groupies haunt my nightmares, but it's fun...ish.

Anyways, the person who was running the Reporting Services before me had an interesting way of dealing with using parameters to filter results in the SQL Query. I know there's a way to filter just using the wizard, but I'm of the opinion that it is probably faster (or at least more efficient) to do filtering in the query. For our filters, if the user doesn't want to use that filter, the first option says "All", but actually has a value of null. The way my predecessor would handle this would be to have a single query for every combination of null/not null parameters. So, if there was one parameter that could be null, there would be two queries, and IF statements to select which one. If there were two nullable parameters, that number raised to four. Three meant nine separate queries...et cetera. 

This wasn't really acceptable to me (mostly because I didn't want to have to add five more queries), so I looked to see if it was possible to use the IF statements right in the middle of the WHERE clause. No dice. So, what I did instead was use the following style of WHERE filter:

WHERE/AND (@param is null OR object.RelevantValue = @param)

This way, if the parameter the expression would still evaluate to true, and the filter statement would only matter if the parameter was actually specified. Now, the report query is 1/4 of its previous size, and 1/9th the size it would've been if I had done it the old way. Rock star? Maybe, maybe not, I don't care. This is just what I do.

Tables for Layout?

I love this

http://shouldiusetablesforlayout.com/

It was a response to a page that claimed that the average time that a web developer took before abandoning CSS for web layout was 47 minutes. Anyone who has worked with me (or watched me work on a web project) will vouch that I have toiled untold hours of my life away, simply trying to get a CSS layout to work. It warms my heart to see that other people are willing to be as fanatical about standards and best practices as I am.

Also, I'll be at the Philadelphia Game Expo this weekend. If you're there, say hi!

Sorry about the lack of posts, I've been working quite dilligently in what little free time I've had, but hopefully some more posts will be forthcoming soon.

Lock's Quest Recap

This is sort of a game review, but also a discussion about interface design, and the nature of fun in games. I recently purchased Lock's Quest, which was the best Strategy game at E3, which for a DS title, is pretty impressive. It's developers also put out Drawn to Life, a game that I wanted, but never got around to purchasing. Basically, you're a special boy in a war...blah blah blah, the story isn't really that important, but the game itself is really involving. 

You have so build walls and turrets to fend off increasingly large and tough armies of clockwork robots. That in and of itself sold me, but the DS's touchscreen is really well implemented in both combat and repairing damaged structures. Depending on what you're trying to do, there's an associated task (pulling a lever, spinning a gear, etc) that makes the action you're attempting go faster, or more effective. While this sounds kind of hackneyed and repetitive, they're mixed up nicely, and you don't just sit around for 10 minutes doing the same thing over and over again.

I'm also really impressed with how they set the flow of the game up. After a few rounds with your defenses, you have an impenetrable death-fortress, and you're able to handle even the most vicious onslaughts. Then, the game tells you that you have to go grab an objective all the way on the other side of the map. It's frustrating, yes, but it breaks the whole build-repair-fight cycle, which is nice. It's also worth noting that there's few things more awesome than watching wave after waves of bad guys crash on the rocky cliffs of your defenses.

One thing is infuriating though. The screen doesn't zoom out, and there's a fixed speed to the camera, so panning from one wall to another can sometimes take precious seconds. This in and of itself is not too bad, since (if you're like me) you can set up relatively smaller, close defenses. However, when you pan to a location, and then tap (which tells your character to move there), the AI that keeps the main character from running aimlessly into a tree is a little bit lacking. So far, I have lost a solid number of turrets, and even a level or two, just because there was a rock or tree or bit of something in the way, and the flax-haired hero did nothing except struggle against the properties of matter until I realized and gave him an easier location to get to (after a while, you get used to tapping out smaller, shorter paths).

With that behind me, I do have a few more good things to say about this game. Despite the "ehh" story, the game has a good length to it. I thoroughly enjoy the game mechanics that are in place, and was worried that with all the cool stuff in it, that the levels would be cut tragically short, leaving me wanting more, much like when you when you visit home, and only get a single strip of bacon, because that's "healthier." Don't worry, this game has platters of bacon. I've been playing it for about two solid weeks now, mostly during my commute and at home and I think I'm only 2/3 of the way through it. 

Also, the difficulty is really well done. While I didn't like that there wasn't a standard dial-a-difficulty, which would be pretty easy to do with this game, I was able to clear most of the levels on the first try, though a good number of those were nail-biters, and a couple of them required a do-over. The increases in challenge over time are well-paced. I never felt too bored, and when I was right on the edge, something new popped up. Also, there's a fun little seige mini-game which would be right at home as a flash game.

Using A LIKE Operator With A String Parameter In SSRS

Hey-o,

Just something quick that I figured out today, that I felt warranted sharing. I'm doing some work with SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS) and the Business Intelligence Development Studio (BIDS), creating reports for work. Today, I was asked to create one that used a LIKE statement in a WHERE clause where the argument passed to the LIKE statement is a string parameter. The challenge here is that concatenating "%"s to the parameter didn't work in the query, nor did the same process in the Dataset -> Filter By tab. The only possible answer I could find was on experts exchange,  which requires a subscription, so I had to figure it out myself. Here's what I did:

1. Create the String parameter you actually want to search with. Make sure that it can be blank, but don't let it be null. For the sake of the example, I'm calling it Filter.
2. Create another, hidden parameter that is also a string. Make sure it is hidden! Then, set the default value to be non-queried ="%" & Parameters!Filter.Value & "%". I gave this parameter the name FilterFormatted. Now, hit okay and close out your Report Parameters.
3. Now, in the query, all you need to do is write "WHERE columntofilter LIKE @FilterFormatted". If you're testing the report, make sure you put the "%" before and after your search string, but going to the "Preview" tab will let you test it the way it'll be deployed (though you should probably know that already).

That's it! Interesting problem, simple fix, solution posted.