(Real) Science IS political, sorry to disillusion you

There is the big "climate gate" hoo-haw in the media right now. Reporters are acting surprised that some leading scientists were caught manipulating scientific literature to silence skeptics and dissenters. They convinced peers to knock skeptics' articles, journals to reject skeptics' papers, remove peers from paper review committees if they passed skeptics' papers, and even shut down journals that published dissenting views. Maybe even fudged their data.

Hey! Science is supposed to be awesome. It always eventually gets it right. Real science is about reproducible experiments and validated results. Actually, no, it is political. Like most other human endeavors.

• Galileo and other historical scientists were shut down by their community. Granted, their scientific peers were not basing their views on empirical data. But many modern scientists still base their views on what they've been taught, not what they've measured. This is understandable, you have to stand on the shoulders of giants to have time to make advances.
• Views are often validated by currently understood standards. If you plot the published speed of light against the year of publication, you will see sequences of flat spots where a value is almost identical to what was previously "measured". And then there is a jump; followed by another flat period of many years. Is this because they were using the same equipment and experimental procedure? Or because anyone that tried to publish a different "answer" was considered a skeptic and shut down? Again, this is understandable. Humans tend to try to be consistent, and not be antisocial and go against the crowd. It requires extra diligence to disprove a well respected master in their field. Like the great Einstein when quantum physics popped up. (Wait! Maybe God changes the real speed of light periodically as a joke!)
• Scientists are funded. Based on whether they get published or referenced. Or if they agree with the "sponsoring" corporation. So the system manipulates them into agreeing with the crowd. But the underbelly of the scientific community is less pretty than what we might have thought of as this kind of indirect pressure.
• Journals are funded. If the larger community of scientists don't subscribe to that journal offers, or schools or corporations pull their funding (or advertising!), a venue of dissent/questioning dies.
• I've seen public "attacks" during a presentation of research. In the form of a "question". Being honest, these questions are self-aggrandizing. E.g. "what makes you think that you are right when I have already published the opposite". It can embarrass a young scientist and discourage them from disagreeing in the future. Only the thick-skinned "crazies" keep at it. Like Tesla.
• I've been on paper review committees where papers are summarily discarded. There are so many that only one or two of the reviewers are assigned to read a given paper before the meeting. If they didn't understand it, or disagreed with the findings (based on their own experience/bias), it can get tossed very quickly. There are a lot to get through. Even when it is "marginal", the shepherding process can be taxing, discouraging a reviewer from volunteering. After all, they are contributing their expertise, but don't get their name on the paper. (Suggestion: maybe they should. If they pass something that proves incorrect, they lose points. As an incentive to get it right. Or would that discourage participation?). For "workshops" (not full Journals) an author's name is sometimes on the paper being reviewed, so their reputation is considered.
• As science get more "fine", some experiments cannot be reproduced except on the original equipment or by the original experts. Think CERN and supercolliders. (Or cold fusion?) Who has another billion dollars just to *reproduce* a result? Unless the larger community thinks a result is hogwash and feels motivated to pool their resources and dump on the results. So who is going to disagree? It almost sounds like a religion at that point.

I bet you've done the same things. Maybe at work. Tried to shut down "the competition". Competing for attention, or a raise, or recognition... You know what would be better? Listen to those that disagree and make sure they know you have heard them. They are trying to make the best decisions they can given their background. No one tries to make dumb decisions. If they are wrong, I'm sure they would appreciate learning something they don't know. Or, maybe they have something to teach you.

Imagine! Learning something from someone that disagrees with you and you find irritating. A dissenter. A skeptic. Seems like those that shut down dissent are not just closed minded, but unwilling to learn. Such a scientist should be embarrassed for themselves. Isn't IDEAL science supposed to be about discovery? Too bad that in reality there is so little ideal science, and so much science influenced by the politics of "real-life science".

Data Driven Entities and Rapid Iteration

It is clearly more difficult to develop content for an online game than a single player game. (For one, sometime entities you want to interact with aren't in your process). So starting with the right techniques and philosophies is critical. Then you need to add tools, a little magic and shake.

There are several hard problems you hit when developing and debugging an online game:

• Getting the game to fail at all. A lot of times bugs are timing related. Of course, once you ship it, to players it will seem like it happens all the time.
  
• Getting the same failure to happen twice is really hard. E.g. if the problem is caused by multiplayer interaction, how are you going to get all players or testers to redo exactly the same thing? And in the spirit of Hiesenbugs, if you attach a debugger or add logging, good luck getting it to fail under those new conditions
  
• Testing a fix is really hard, because you want to get the big distributed system back into the original state and test your fix. Did you happen to snapshot that state?
  
• Starting up a game can take a long time (content loading). Starting an online game takes even longer because it also includes deployment to multiple machines, remote restarting, loading some entities from a DB, logging in, ...
  
• If you are a novice content developer plagued by such a bug or a guy in QA trying to create repro steps to go along with the bug report, it will probably end badly.
  

Consequently, what do you need to do to make things palatable?

• Don't recompile your application after a "change". Doing that leads (on multiple machines) to shutdown, deploy, restart, "rewind" to the failure point. You'd like to have edit and continue of some sort. To do that, almost certainly you'd need a scripted language (or at least one that does just in time compilation, and understands edit and continue).
  
• Don't even restart your application. Even if you can avoid recompilation, it can take a loooong time to load up all the game assets. Especially early in production, your pipeline may not support optimized assets (e.g. packed files). For a persistent world, there can be an awful lot of entities stored in the database to load and recreate. Especially if you are working against a live or a snapshot of a live shard. At the very least, only load the assets you need.
• Yes, I'm talking about rapid iteration and hot loading. When you can limit most changes to data, there is no reason you can't leave everything running, and just load the assets that changed. In some cases when things change enough you might have to "reset" by clearing all assets from memory and reloading, but at least you didn't have to restart the server
  
• Rapid iteration is particularly fun on consoles, which often have painfully long deployment steps. Bear in mind that you don't have an editor in-game on a console, it is too clumsy. So the content you see in your editor on your workstation is just a "preview". You would swivel-chair to the console to see what it really looks like on-target.
  
• Try to make "everything" data driven. For example, you can specify the properties and behaviors of your entities in a tool and use a "bag of properties" kind of Entity in most cases. After things have settled down, you can optimize the most used ones, but during content development, there is a huge win to making things data-driven. Of course, there is nothing stopping you from doing both at once.
• Another benefit of a data-driven definition of an Entity is that it is so much easier to extract information needed to automatically create a database schema. Wouldn't you rather build a tool to do this than to teach your content developers how to write SQL?

Don't forget that most of the time and money in game development pours through the content editor GUIs. The more efficient you can make that, the more great content will appear. If you want to hire the best content developers, make your content development environment better than anyone else's.