把新家 搬到新浪喽~ 呵呵~ http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1091910357 

 

喜欢老徐 也沾沾人气。

 

旧家具慢慢回来收拾，等不及入住了嘿~ ~

 

今天收到 深圳寄来的书  翘首以盼很久了  回家看书。。。

WHO：谁来做？

WHAT：做什末？

HOW：怎末做？

 

不管是黑猫白猫，抓到老鼠的，就是好猫。

 

（msn space 太慢，找个新家搬过去。）

One of the things that I have been thinking about a lot lately is the way that the current Web world (particularly the Web 2.0 stuff) and games seems to be ships passing in the night. It’s led me to say a lot lately that the two groups have a lot to learn from one another. Right now, with big dot-com folks like Joi Ito calling WoW “the new golf,” there’s a bit more awareness crossing the gap, but sometimes I wonder if the right lessons are bring learned.

So I thought I’d post my quick off-the-top-of-my-head list of stuff that each side should learn from the other.

Things that the Web folks can learn from games:

• Interface. Games bring a lot of interface knowledge to the table; consider that most games offer far more complex environments to navigate, with far subtler information, than the typical webpage. And yet, the current trend towards simpler interfaces in webpages has mostly meant simplifying actual capability.
• It’s the content, stupid. Far too many web services are features, not systems, and far too many of them are intended to grow via user content without being seeded with actual content. The most robust user content communities are those built by fandoms, accreting like pearls around initial ideas.
• Entertainment. Games are about fun; far too many web services are simply not fun. All activities can be improved by adding some fun factor: game-like qualities like collecting, ranking, and so on.
• Feedback. Games understand that everything is about feedback. Websites often seem to forget, and I don’t know why. This is getting better with AJAX, but there’s still a heck of a lot of forms of feedback that are missing, particularly persistent feedback.
• Identity. One thing games typically do well is provide identity and context. I am not referring solely to avatars and characters, but also to themes. Avatars and profiles, obviously, rock. Puzzle games don’t have avatars, and yet the context of Bookworm is memorable, and nobody is going to forget Zuma’s weirdo frog. Context matters.
• Depth. Games often provide something that is simple on the face of it, yet reveals hidden unexpected depths. It’s implicit in the models games provide. Yet often, a given web service (or even a new application or tool) has no hidden depths. It is what it is on the surface. There’s more enthusiasm for continuing to interact with software when it keeps revealing cool stuff to you.

Things that the game guys can learn from the Web:

• Digital distribution. There aren’t any websites that you buy in a store. That’s because stores are an outmoded way to distribute digital data. The prime reason to do it is because you want to retain control of the entire process from generation of data through distribution and onto the playback mechanism. But bits, by and large, do want to be free.
• Platforms. Web services are full of APIs that connect services and apps, magnify utility, and allow mashups and greater user content. Games, even those which are designed for modding, don’t really embrace openness. The industry is pretty determined to be a content creation industry, but games are not content, they are systems content lives in.
• Everything is a database. The web is built on databases; games aren’t databases, they are models, but they are typically models that interact with databases. Embracing your databaseness opens up all sorts of possibilities for how you interact with the data.
• Small pieces loosely joined. The web has figured out that bite-size chunks are what make sense for the largest amount of people. Sure, lots of bite-sized chunks aggregated into a site like Amazon or eBay makes something that’s big overall, but it’s got some advantages over linear structures: easy to jump in anywhere, easy to do things in different orders, easy to search and index, and easy to add to.
• KISS. Games are in love with overcomplication (particularly the “mainstream” games industry, which is anything but, targeted as it is at mostly hardcore gamers and hobbyists). Most websites do something highly targeted and simple, and do it well. Crazy game budgets are a symptom of a problem, not something to emulate.
• Client agnostic. Web guys rely on standards and assume that any damn browser might interact with their content. They provide alternate versions for differing client platforms. Us, we often design completely new games for different platforms, then release them under the same name.

 

 

这两个观念放在这里，对比思考一下。

 

赢家通吃，大者恒大，大家伙能维持多久？ 能吃到哪些？ 小家伙怎末生存？怎末变大？

 

冲得快得 肯定要赢过跑得慢的。关键是别弄错方向。

 

历史研究里有个观点：最大的失败 是成功。 如何看待这个问题呢？ 永远的beta版。 

 

 

前不久去一朋友那里，家里的孩子在玩拆卸玩具，看他一个人玩得开心，我就加入跟他一起玩儿。 

 

过会儿，我问他：这样拆来装上的，不会烦吗？

 

他咯咯笑： 我要练习啊~~ 以后啊~我要把我的小金刚拆开，修理一下他的胳膊呢，再以后，我还想把自己拆开呢。

 

我看着他乐。

 

我们每个人，时不时都该把自己拆开，修理一下。

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS：今天有水木年华在北展的演唱会。完美世界冠名，QQ游戏赞助。 异业合作俨然成了网游marketing的流行。效果如何呢？

昨晚在财富故事会 看到 百万格子（中国版  1baiwan.com）。 很早就听同事讲过这个网站，口口（包括QQ/MSN）相传的传播方式非常适合。

再到电视上以财富故事讲出来，到达电视的用户群体。PR做得漂亮！

 

（ 好奇心的商业价值有多大？ 如何深度挖掘？）

 

 

 

这几周忙得乱转，没有按时吃饭。昨晚上胃终于提意见了。后两周的主要目标是 规律饮食。

 

人常常这样，不到自己痛了想不起来。

 

左一痛右一痛地，渐渐长大。

昨晚，给老爸打电话，妈接的，特别高兴地告诉我：小猪回家了，听见电话响，要跟我说话。我大喜，心想，小猪还挺有良心的，竟然能记得姑姑。

 

过一会儿，猪妈的声音在旁边，一遍遍重复：“叫姑----姑----，叫姑---姑---”。。。

电话那头儿咿咿呀呀，好像小猪在那边运气呢， 过了老半天，终于出了声：“姑(goo)-----------姑儿(gle)-----”。

 

我笑翻了，猪妈猪爸更是笑成一团了。小猪不知大伙儿为啥那末乐，高兴得咿呀乱叫。

 

哈！原来google的名字是这样得来的。