Quote:
Originally Posted by martin417
I have done no "in depth analysis", no trade studies. I haven't spent hours thinking about the issues, the ethics, and the morals. I won't make a passionate statement about how it should be done, because I don't know.
What I have noticed since the start of RI3D and others, is that instead of a dizzying array of different ideas at each regional, some awesome, some not so much, some that work others that fail, we now have a lot more "vanilla pudding". Most of the robots end up being a clone or a derivative of one of the robots built in the videos. Yes, more of the robots work better than in the past, but there are fewer "wow, that is cool! I never would have thought of that!" moments.
I don't think RI3D is evil, but I do think it has reduced the level of creativity, and given teams an easy way out that too many are taking. It's like using a cheat code in video game, yeah you get past the boss, but it's not as satisfying, and the game is not as exciting. (this is an analogy only, I am not saying that RI3D is "cheating")
|
I guess my problem with this line of reasoning, and why I don't really subscribe to the "vanilla pudding" argument, is because I haven't noticed any decline in "wow, that is cool!" moments since Ri3D started.
I have also not done any in depth analysis but my anecdotal evidence directly contradicts yours (a common problem with anecdotal evidence) so I tend to disagree with the premise that Ri3D is stifling creativity at all. Certainly it's not any more damaging then looking at past games or robots.
Perhaps the onus is now on us as mentors to leverage the videos themselves as a teaching experience, and encourage students to take creative steps beyond those shown. Or have them propose something completely different that they can show is better.
TL;DR: I haven't seen any decrease in FRC creativity, and I fail to see what everyone has gotten so worked up about.