Slashdot Mirror
eGenesis to Develop New MMO with Orson Scott Card
Johnathon Walls writes "eGenesis, makers of the non-combat, world-building massively multiplayer online (MMO) game "A Tale in the Desert" versions 1 and 2, has signed a deal with Orson Scott Card (author of Ender's game and The Seventh Son) to develop the pre-Civil War American world of "Alvin the Maker" into a new MMO. This is also going to be a non-combat-centered, community-building world. Questions remain as to the amount of interest these non-combat games generate, and concerns about the rapidly dropping population of Tale 2 (a steady decline from 2089 subscribers on Sep 26 to 1582 subscribers on Jan 6) really bring this issue to the forefront."
Caveat: I'm a raving fanboy of Orson Scott Card's *writing*.
That being said, as much as I adore the Alvin Maker series, I'm not sure how that will translate into an MMORPG. Ultimately all such games require conflict as much as cooperation, and without combat, conflict feels lacking in many such games.
Issues of product aside, I'm hoping Orson Scott Card reaps fantastic gobs of money for the license for the stories/setting, as his work certainly is worth it.
"To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
It boggles my mind as to how a member of one oft-persecuted minority group (Mormons) can justify persecuting another minority group.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Though I believe in the concept of an "informed consumer", if you refuse to frequent businesses, read books, and otherwise engage with people whose views differ significantly from your own, you will quickly become either a cult member or the loneliest person on the planet.
Is everything that two people consent to necessarily ethical? If I consent to you killing me, does that automatically make your killing of me ethical? If someone likes being beaten choked to the virge of death during sex (and there are some who do, and a few die of it) does that mean that choking oneself during sex is not aberrant behavior? You are viewing morality through an individualistic lens - you are assuming that, for something to be immoral, it must necessarily hurt some individual.
This is not (necessarily) an incorrect position, but it is important that you understand that it is strictly a modern position. Prior to recent times, moral standards were regarded througha communitarian lens. Something could be regarded as harmful to the community even if those participating had no problem with it and there was no direct, discernible effect on anyone else.
The bottom line is that the prohibition against exclusive homosexuality is not a recent, Christian phenomenon. It has been present in virtually all cultures, at all times, in all places. Even the Greeks, whom gay advocates like to cite as proof that rejection of homosexuality is not universal, did not practice anything like what todays gay movement advocates. "Gay marriage" was simply never an issue. One married for progeny (consider, for example, Alexander, who was "queer" as the proverbial three dollar bill, but who nevertheless married, had a mistress, and had children) - one engaged in gay sex as a fling. Moreover, in both Greek and Roman culture, it was regarded as very shameful to play the "female" part in gay sex. There was no sense in which homosexuality was regarded as an alternative to heterosexuality - instead, it was regarded as a fling, something that one did when young and with the young. (And, frankly, if you look up any authoritative source on this you will find this out. I'm not makign this up.)
The point is that you can't find any culture, anywhere, that practiced the kind of homosexuality that gay rights folks advocate today. There never has been gay marriage, because gay marriage made no sense when gay sex was just a fling and the absurd notion of "orientation" had not yet been invented. And I challenge you to cite a *single* counter-example.
Furthermore, it is evident that "gay marriage" - at least among male homosexuals - is not equivalent to heterosexual marraige in an important respect. Namely, it is rarely, if ever, monogamous. This has been borne out by so many studies that it is proven, and it has even been admitted by gay advocates in some forums. Gay marriages tend to define monogamy in emotional terms rather than physical terms.
Finally, there is overwhelming eviedence, which the gay press willfully ignores, that homosexual orientation can be changed. Here are a few representative, published, peer-reviewed articles to prove the point.
Arch Sex Behav. 2003 Oct;32(5):403-17; discussion 419-72. Related Articles, Links
Comment in:
* Arch Sex Behav. 2003 Oct;32(5):399-402.
* Arch Sex Behav. 2004 Apr;33(2):83-4; author reply 84-5.
* Arch Sex Behav. 2004 Aug;33(4):325.
Click here to read
Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation.
Spitzer RL.
Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York 10032, USA. rls8@columbia.edu
Position statements of the major mental health organizations in the United States state that there is no scientific evidence that a homosexual sexual orientation can be changed by psychotherapy, often referred to as "reparative therapy." This study tested the hypothesis that some individuals whose sexual orientation is predominantly homosexu
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1