> I do not believe in objectivity in rankings. This is not to say I think being objective with regards to rankings is impossible, nor do I think "objective" tools serve no purpose (the tools I've written have already proven highly useful in generating baselines for seeding tournaments). No, more specifically I want to stress that "objective" ranking systems are much less objective than they actually seem, and the word "algorithmic" or "empirical" might be better.
Rating systems, once again. I don't think I agree with much of this article (e.g. the reasoning for Elo not working for double-elimination seem totally nonsensical). But the core idea of not having tournament seeding be purely algorithmic? Sure.
Blizzard going above and beyond on remastering an old game. There was apparently a large number of user-made StarCraft maps that relied on buffer overflows to read/modify game internals (all the way to basically rewriting some of the game logic). How do you not break these maps when the game is basically completely rewritten? By basically building an elaborate buffer overflow emulation layer.
Just a crazy level of dedication.
"How do you write a minesweeper puzzle generator that always generates a level that can be won without guessing" is a boring question. That kind of level generation sucks. For a moment it looks like it's where this article is going. It's not, though. The core idea here is a lot more clever.
"Dear ImGUI" in the browser with WebGL and webasm. I've been wanting to do something like this for a couple of small browser-based games.
(Something a bit odd going on with the keyboard handling though).