Slashdot Mirror

The new games are still fun, but they feel 'tinny', or less substantive than I'd come to expect for millions of ducats dumped in to a piece of software. With many modern shooters, I feel like they are evolving into a caricature of what a decent shooter would be.

I'd have to agree with this.

The major change seems to be the death of creative-vision. Older games from 1990-2000 were basically cool ideas hammered into the shape of a game, there were quite a few crappy and derivative games but even some of the bad games at least had a glint of something new and interesting whether it was the setting, story or mechanics.

Modern games seem to be frustratingly "safe" for want of a better description. It's as though every games needs to consciously make an effort to capture as wide an audience as possible. The phrase "niche game" or "niche appeal" is seen as some sort of horrific curse word. Everything needs to appeal to a general audience, including people who do not like the type of game in question (See Plants vs Zombies as a Shooter for this sort of nonsensical garbage cranked to 11).

Really, when people say "indie developers make better games" it is not literally true. Big studio games are always better in the general sense, but they are also always an unfocused mess that does their absolute best not to alienate anyone. [This is also why modern games are "easier" than they used to be, actually challenging the player with a difficult puzzle or a competent AI is too alienating to be allowed] Ultimately, what you end up with is mediocrity; not bad per se, but not noteworthy, special or memorable either.

The new games are still fun, but they feel 'tinny', or less substantive than I'd come to expect for millions of ducats dumped in to a piece of software. With many modern shooters, I feel like they are evolving into a caricature of what a decent shooter would be.

Yeah.... new games like XCom and Borderlands 2 are terrible. We should have stuck with Quake.

I booted up a few of my fairly recent FPS purchases last night for PC just to get a sense of where the community is at. CS:S, BF2, BF3, BFBC2, TF2, Q3A, CoD (x), L4D(1-2), etc all still strong. The thing about it is, there are so many decade old shooters that just wont die. I can still play CS 1.6 and will prefer it to any new Call of Duty. But why? Is it a comfort thing? Nostalgia for a past era? Simplicity? Muscle memory? Surely some of that.

The new games are still fun, but they feel 'tinny', or less substantive than I'd come to expect for millions of ducats dumped in to a piece of software. With many modern shooters, I feel like they are evolving into a caricature of what a decent shooter would be.

Also, I think as the PC gaming generation gets older fewer newbies (In all due respect of course!) back-fill our ranks. I hope I'm wrong. Anybody got stats on our rate of attrition? LMGTFY yada yada ..

All government is not the same, your a fool if you think so.
Big government A, and big government B could be completely different, and have vastly different outcomes.

Big govt A spends 49% GDP on wars propping up friends in foreign countries and handouts to the already mega wealthy.
Big govt B spends 50% GDP on healthcare, infrastructure, education, science, etc.
Intervention can be good or bad, regardless of its size.
Where would you rather live? Is the bigger big govt worse?

Government spending is required by law. That mean each time a government obligation comes due, the President is required to pay it by law. (Well, presumably he only to pay it if he has the money on hand. This has never been tested in court, but he can't do things that are physically impossible.).

Wrong. The laws automatically appropriate funding which is considered spending but it in no way requires it _all_ to be spent or _all_ to be spent at once. Under the 14th amendment of the US constitution, the president is obligated to service our debt first then deal with any lawful spending. I know it is a problem for most of you on the left when the constitution gets in your way, but constitutionally, he is obligated to honor the debts before any spending by law. that means even if congress passed a law saying all money appropriated either by entitlement law or whatever must be spent on anything other then the debt, it would be unconstitutional to do so.

So, if we didn't raise the debt limit, the constitution would supersede any laws in place, the president would have to service debt obligations and then make judgement calls about which entitlements would remain fully funded. To suggest that a law can create a conflict here is incorrect as the US constitution as well as judicial declaration, clearly places the constitution and it's amendments over top of any law made by congress or states or judicial order.

Everything else you wrote is negated by that fact there alone. I will not bother addressing them in detail but no criminal act can withstand conflict with the Constitution so that argument is dead on arrival. Your ad hominem attacks fail also because it clearly demonstrate you have a lack of knowledge of the constitution and it's role in government.

And the idea of an impeachment is already completely ignorant because Obama has already violated his constitutional obligations and faced no repercussions at all over it. Why do you think that all the sudden one more time would make a difference when congress cannot even get together to work out a reasonable deal on the debt or budget? IS it because the thought emboldens your ignorance and bluster's your false understandings?

And that post should not be read to imply that no government spending is under control of the executive. Grants, for example, could stop being issued, and certain projects where the executive has discretion could be delayed.

However, social security couldn't possibly be stopped by the executive, and neither could 90% of military spending. Hell, 60% of the budget is 'mandatory', meaning it is money we have to pay under standing law, not under the year-to-year budget process. And probably 90% of the remaining money is allocated, by law, under the budget process.

I'd be amazed if the amount of money legally under the control of the president, to the extent he can legally choose not to spend it, was more than 5% of the budget.

(And this entire stupid argument, ignoring the fact it's illegal for the president, is under the rather dubious logic that people would continue buying government bonds simply because that is the one part of the government still working, while we're failing to make payments on everything else. Uh, no. That's not how loans and bond markets work.)

The problem with not raising the debt limit is that we spend roughly 1/3 more then we take in so spending over that limit would be absolutely required to stop. This is easy to do but it would mean that entitlements stop and other things until either the debt can get under control or the limit is raised.

So a default for not raising the debt limit is only a default if the president insists on not servicing our debt and keeping entitlements and/or other government not subject to a shutdown active.

*BZZZZZT* Wrong.

Government spending is required by law. That mean each time a government obligation comes due, the President is required to pay it by law. (Well, presumably he only to pay it if he has the money on hand. This has never been tested in court, but he can't do things that are physically impossible.).

There is no legal justification, and it would be criminal, for him to refuse to pay an obligation on Monday just because on Tuesday he has some debt to service. Even if that obligation on Monday is completely trivial that the government could easily not pay at the moment, he is REQUIRED BY LAW to pay it, right then and there, no matter what consequences happen on Tuesday due to lack of money.

(There are some circumstances where he can possibly make a judgement, like if he had to make two payments in the same day but could only afford one, but that's not actually important here.)

People who assert otherwise are either a) morons who don't understand that the executive branch operates under the law, including _when_ and to _whom_ payments are made, and cannot diverge from this, or b) Republicans who do understand them but are rather suspiciously suggesting that President Obama decide to break the law...they all pinky swear they won't impeach him, of course.

The few people that I met were uber Chrisita, let's get back to the 50's, white older couples, usually male dominated marriage, claimed to respect the constitution but want to outlaw abortion, gay sex, and public schools. Yeah those people deserve all the negative publicity they can get.

When you can turn a grass roots political party into a pejorative, you have succeeded. Well done American media and the powers that be.

I never thought that desire for fiscal responsibility, constitutional rule, and limited concentration of power would be masked over with such a contrived caricature.

Constitutional rule implies that you win elections, pass legislation, and accept judicial review. You do not threaten a global economic meltdown to extort concessions from the President.

"Concentration of power?"

Where has there ever been a greater concentration of money and power than in the radical Republican right? You march to the tune of the talk shows, the think tanks and the money men or else.

I never thought that desire for fiscal responsibility, constitutional rule, and limited concentration of power would be masked over with such a contrived caricature.

Sounds like you don't know what the Tea Party is all about. Especially since you called it a grass roots campaign. The Tea Party is composed of two factions -- those who run the Tea Party and those who are duped into supporting it. In this way it is much like Scientology. Those who run it do not desire fiscal responsibility, constitutional rule, and limited concentration of power. They desire a business-friendly oligarchy similar to what Bush/Cheney gave them from '00-'08. To do this they need votes and they get votes by pretending to be religious, fiscal conservatives. The best political label for the Tea Party would be fascist as their tactics are purely Machiavellian, as are their objectives. Just because Joe Schmoe, "I vote the Tea Party because I'm a dumbass evangelical who believes in the Constitution that I've never read but I know it gives me the right to own a gun" identifies with the Tea Party doesn't mean his views actually matter to the party. No one likes it when a thread is Godwined, but regardless it's worth noting that this is how the Nazi party came to power in Germany. Hitler didn't come to power by preaching genocide.

Then again, Americans who reveal widespread domestic spying by the government are called 'leakers' and 'traitors'.

This is a terrible thing and is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The only reason Tea Party members act so horrified by these revelations is because they're not in power and they can use the issue to demonize the current administration. The horrible abuses by the U.S. government aren't limited to one party and many congressmen from both parties sit on committees that have made them privy to these abuses the entire time they've gone on. The fact that the main opponents of the government over-extending its reach are Ron Wyden and Rand Paul -- two men whose ideologies are completely opposed regarding economics -- demonstrates that these things need to be judged regarding individuals, not parties.

Stop quoting 1984. It loses its impact when fools recite it over and over again, like the sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm. I'm so sick an tired of seeing slashdotters quote Newspeak in a vain attempt to make a point.

Limiting government and being fiscally responsible are not extreme notions and most sane individuals support these ideals. What the Tea party gets insulted for is their insane black-and-white, near sociopathic approach to these ideals. This ranges from burn it all down and start over to blindly cutting huge swaths of programs with little concern for the consequences.

Or maybe that's just the loudest extreme arm of the group. Maybe the real Tea Partiers aren't like those elected to congress, where they vilify the poor and make some of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard uttered from politicians. Maybe we're all just getting a really bad impression because that is what the media wants us to see. The media shows us a bunch of uneducated white bigots with a banner "Tea Party" underneath it, and the real Tea Partiers just shake their heads and weep over how their good honest movement has been usurped by a bunch of neo-fascist, anti-science douchebags.

If that's the case, then the Tea Partiers need to make a solid effort to get these nutbags that claim to represent them out of office and get some real people in there. They are making you guys look bad.

"this current recession"

you were saying something about remarkable ignorance?

I never thought that desire for fiscal responsibility, constitutional rule, and limited concentration of power would be masked over with such a contrived caricature.

They're not.

The "Tea Party", on the other hand, is -- as well they should be.

It started as a populist movement with some people advocating the things that you stated. And that was a noble goal. But like many "grassroots" movements, it was co-opted by powerful (read: rich) influences, and has been steered instead towards their current position: a rabid, economically-ignorant (yet politically-involved) group for which the merits of an idea are trumped by whether or not their "team" endorsed it (Democrat: bad, "Republican": good.)

I have no love for either mainstream US party, and initially I thought that the Tea Party idea might end up developing into a viable third party platform with values closer to those of classic liberal philosophy. (Note: "liberal" here is used in its original form, not as a synonym for Democrat). Sadly, they turned out nothing like that -- and the folks who currently wear the label are worthy of the scorn they get.

"I never thought that desire for fiscal responsibility, constitutional rule, and limited concentration of power would be masked over with such a contrived caricature."

Except that's not what it's about, the tea party are willing dupes to D&R. If they were serious they would be voting third party. Not republican. The oligarchy just steers these people into the system and keeps them confused by taking advantage of their hopes.

Not only that, 'limited government' just means even more power for corporations (aka dictatorship and more corporate control of the law, less environmental regulations, more pollution, etc).

There's no good answer because people are immature and desperately uninformed. Nobody should be FOR polluting the fucking planet, but tea partiers definitely are because they don't understand historically GOVERNMENT has been the only force with the kind of power to go after serious polluters. The reason government is so bad is because it has been captured by corporate interests. Tea partiers if they had any intelligence at all would call off the stupid bs between left and right, form a coalition with others and vote both D&R out of office.

Tea Party "values" were the primary cause of a 2-week federal government shutdown. A complete shutdown. That wasted $26 billion. All of those salaried federal employees are still going to be paid for all that sitting around we told them to do. That is not fiscal responsibility, but the Tea Party was right there in the very middle of it. There is no contrived caricature here, the Tea Party is a fucking joke.

When you can turn a grass roots political party into a pejorative, you have succeeded. Well done American media and the powers that be.

I never thought that desire for fiscal responsibility, constitutional rule, and limited concentration of power would be masked over with such a contrived caricature. Then again, Americans who reveal widespread domestic spying by the government are called 'leakers' and 'traitors'. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

There is a phrase, for years, nay decades, used among colorists, video engineers, camera operators and lighting designers/directors, to describe human subjects of significantly dark and contrasting skintone: LRP = Low Reflectance Personnel. It wasn't/isn't racial, it was/is descriptive without being so. All skin tones, regardless of race have their challenges...for instance the same 1/4 cto filter I use for some black actors to warm the blue skin cast is the same filter I use for white actors with too much magenta pigment.

The writer of the article, besides trying to get her race card stamped, seems to be hugely ignorant of the industry in general and the technology used in filmaking then and now - it's one thing to decry (as it shoud be) the portrayals of blacks as "caricatures" (although what do you say about cartoonish white guys like Jim Carey, Arnold Schwarzenegger and our pal, Larry The Cable Guy), and the use of white actors in black-face. It's quite another to make the claim that the industry as a whole discrimated against blacks and people of color by rigging the technology. Ain't nobody got time for that - or, as the Mob would say, "there's no percentage in it." Apparantly the author has no concept of this industry, which is all about making money, and, as we all know, comes only in green, gold and silver.

Back when the motion picture studio moguls (and their Mob financiers) saw that talkies were all the rage, studios invested heavily in the best sound technology money could buy, and made it all back on "the musical." Al Jolson may have been in black-face, but Lena, Ida, Dorothy and Pearly Mae weren't, and a lot of the sound technology from Westrex, RCA and Siemans was created to capture their subtle and resonate vocal range, not belters like Jolson.

Now that HDTV and digital distribution is all the rage, they're again investing and developing technology to exploit the market. In this case, as better processor, sensor and lens technology comes into the market, less use of color correction in lighting will be needed, ergo less labor costs for technicians in production or post. It's all about the Benjamins, man...if it makes it simpler to shoot dark skinned actros, then I predict you'll be seeing a return of the "blacxploitation" film...as long as there's a market for it.

Seriously, quoting an assistant professor from Howard (that is renown for it's film school - not) isn't exactly a qualified source or proof of "discriminating" by white man's technology. Additionally, the alleged quote from Steve (I wasn't there, but I saw it as a kid in the theater) McQueen isn't valid if it's attempting to make the racial case. In the 1960's you had limited choices for film stock and even less if you wanted to shoot at night. You had to light everything with big Brute carbon arc lamps or risk looking like it was shot in a closet...and those suckers generate heat. So, of course everyone was sweating - black, white, actor, crew - it's not like today where we use led, hmi and xenon lights that are far more efficient and cooler than the old 220v carbon arcs.

Oh and, by the way, the "vaseline" on the skin of dark persons trick? Been using it and teaching it for years, and it works on white skin too...baby oil is better for females, but really, anything that'll cause the skin to reflect light...fashion shooters have been using it for years as well to highlight muscle tone and shape of faces and body parts. That trick is really to cause pop since, after all, we're really only shooting in 2d and need separation/contrast for detail - and the only way to get that when skin tone contrast/gamma is fighting you is to make the details shine and reflect.

And, for the record, as the line in Blazing Saddles goes: "Are we black? Yes, we are..." and I've been shooting film and video of folks who look like me for the last 50 years. And folks that look like you, too.

Not sure if you wrote what you meant to write. You said it's ignorant to argue for the government NOT to spend more money than it has in the depths of a recession.

If you meant what you wrote, then you are he of remarkable ignorance.

We had huge government intervention during the depression and this current recession / malaise. Government is the reason the depression was as deep as it was and as long as it was. Government is the reason we haven't rebounded from our current doldrums.

If you argue that a poor economy is worth all the government programs, then fine. But if you try to argue massive government control over the economy is positive for the economic health of a nation, that is crazy as shown throughout history. Compare North Korea to South Korea or East Germany to West Germany while the iron curtain was up for the glaringly obvious examples.

Less government control over the economy is the reason the United Stated had been well ahead of Europe economically for many decades and more government control is why it isn't any more.

One problem is that it's not at all clear what "stick to Constitutional powers" means, it is something that people can validly disagree about. However many of the loudest Tea Partiers, at least the ones that most people manage to hear, believe that it is all obvious and there's no need for debate. Some may even propose unconstitutional actions (defaulting on the debt which seems on the surface to be against the 4th clause of 14th amendment).

Defaulting on the debt is only a scare job. The US government takes in roughly 200 billion a month in tax revenue and serving the debt only take about 20 billion. The problem with not raising the debt limit is that we spend roughly 1/3 more then we take in so spending over that limit would be absolutely required to stop. This is easy to do but it would mean that entitlements stop and other things until either the debt can get under control or the limit is raised.

So a default for not raising the debt limit is only a default if the president insists on not servicing our debt and keeping entitlements and/or other government not subject to a shutdown active.

The other problem is "spending more money than it has". This is a great principle. But it has to be achieved in a rational manner. That means not cutting it off cold turkey. We actually managed to slow this down and flatten the growth of the debt during the Clinton era (with lots of Republican help of course). However there does seem to be a big desire to do more than just keeping the spending in limit, but to actually reduce the spending even after there is no debt. Plus the idea of using taxes to eliminate the debt is anathema to most tea partiers.

There were economic activities during the Clinton year that made a balanced budget more probable that simply won't be recreated. We had Y2k fears which spurred an entire industry trying to avoid a computer meltdown that would send us back to the stone age, there was the creation and conversions of the IRAs to ROTH IRAs in which retirement income that was saved before tax had the option to pay the taxes and then become tax free at withdraw. We also saved a load on government spending by modernizing a lot of the departments and automating some systems. But Clinton actually negotiated with congress when the government was shut down which got welfare reform and a few other footholds in entitlement reform that allowed the budget to be balanced.

President G.W Bush had actually produced and passed a balanced budget in 2001 which projected to be balanced his entire first term as president. The problem is that those other activities didn't follow into his term and economic activity collapsed greatly after 9/11. Something else that Clinton had was cheap energy. This is something we found to be missing during Bush's terms in office, somewhat present today but is unlikely to happen on the same scale because of the threat of global warming. Energy is something the impacts everything from the production of food and products to the enjoyment of either as well as the costs just to get to work. If you look back at almost every booming economy in history (in the US) we have had cheap energy and when that energy became too expensive, the boom was over. But note, a booming economy doesn't mean a balanced budget or debt reduction. It just makes it more plausible if someone where to attempt to do it.

As you state the two principles above, there are probably many liberals who would agree with those statements but who would be unwelcome in the Tea Party movement. That's because there's also a very strong conservative and libertarian leaning there. So while there many be many who say they are only basing their views on those two principles only, they also have very specific ideas about the corollaries they derive from those principles.

It would depend on your meaning of liberal. There are Tea Party politicians who appose the federal government doing a lot of th

You mean vocal minority? The most vocal part of any organization will almost assuredly be a minority of that organization. The Tea Party is no different.

Do you judge Christians by the Evangelicals, or liberals by eco-terrorists?