I, too, harbor a good deal of nostalgia and sometimes lament the much-touted 'fall of the arcade'. But when I come to my senses, I realize that said 'fall' is not a fact of history, but a misunderstanding made by many people.
What arcades have historically tried to sell is an experience. The videogame was (and still is) central to that experience, until the popularization of the first generation of consoles (The Atari 2600, Colecovision, etc. -- the early home computers were already a niche market), the idea of playing videogames at a non-commercial venue was simply impractical.
So the videogame was largely the experience.
With the popularization and explosion in power of home consoles and PCs (architecture-neutral term), people can play any old game at home. In fact, with the popularization of multiplayer games, particularly Internet-centric multiplayers games, the 'home' experience is often superior to that of the arcade.
What most people miss, however, is that in a few select regions (notably California and New York City), the social aspect of gaming is coming back. Many have mentioned Dance Dance Revolution, even if only in passing. I think that DDR is a revolution in more ways than just name; while the DDR "game experience" can conceivably be replicated at home (though, of course, with inferior input), the social experience of DDR can not be so easily replicated.
Communities have developed around DDR that are inherently friendly and inherently communicative. Even for one-time or very occasional players, the very act of getting up on the pad and moving your body to the music strikes a very primal chord with most people. At an "everday" arcade when a player steps up to a previously unoccupied DDR machine, a crowd forms around him and marvels, and cheers on! This social experience isn't just a benefit to the player, spectating is often extremely entertaining, especially while watching experts or freestylers.
There were also scenes from Star Wars, Dr. Strangelove, E.T., and Titanic
YES! I actually thought this particular one was so subtle that it was probably the animators who chose to put it in, not the director.
Pay attention to when our heroes are escaping from the undead pygmies and are crossing the bridge. Rick O'Connell throws a stick of dynamite at the log bridge and it explodes. One particular pygmy rides the pieces of wood down into the ravine like a cowboy.
--
Shake and shake
the ketchup bottle.
None will come,
That introduced ambiguity by itself should be enough of a reason to hold back on declaring VKP legal.
No no no no no!
We live in a society built on negative freedom! I am free to do whatever I want unless society deems it unacceptable and therefore illegal, not the other way around.
If you let others convince you that you must ask permission to do something, you are clasping your own manacles shut.
-Tal
--
Shake and shake
the ketchup bottle.
None will come,
(BTW: I still contend that Contra is impossible to beat unless you have 30 lives.:) )
You'd be surprised. During the spring semester of 2000 (just last semester), me and a few of my intrepid buddies blew off steam during near-finals time by playing Contra.
Now we didn't just play the game, playing the game became The Way.
Indeed, since we were ground down so hard by our studies (we're Mechanical and Electrical Engineers at the Cooper Union, in New York City), we simultaneously bonded and got out healthy agression by playing Contra.
By the time finals rolled around, and in the post-finals celebratory haze, we considered a game of Contra only really won if yout beat it without losing a single life (single player, too, but better 2-player).
I can still recall cheering on your buds when watching, violently screaming at your (in)competent partner when playing, and generally socializing over a good game.
Besides, how can anyone claim Tecmo Superbowl was not a cultural milestone of gigantic importance?
-Tal --
Shake and shake
the ketchup bottle.
None will come,
It took me a second, but I think that Effugas (the guy who sent in the story) made a tremendously funny metajoke by linking the word "A" to one of Something Awful's Cranky Steve's Whorehouse map reviews. The infamous This Map is GoodFun
For those know in-the-know, Something Awful is an often hilarious page of humor written by one Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka, and is somewhat game-oriented in much of its humor. One featured page is "Cranky Steve's Whorehouse" which reviews Quake (and its descendants, relatives) maps that are truly and hellaciously awful. One hallmark of bad maps, and this one in particular is the overuse of colored lighting.
So imagine what happens when everywhere you go, the same type of people who write these godawful Quake maps get the bright idea to use these multicolored lights in real life?
First, suppose John Doe enters public library and uses public library's computer to access illicit material (such as child porn, etc.). Now suppose 5-year-old kid sees John Doe John Doe's screen with said illicit images and asks his mom what that is. Mother is outraged. What is the library's legal liability?
A mother should never be outraged when her child asks 'what is that'. She should be proud.
A bit of a disclaimer, first off. I know full well this is off-topic to the posted discussion, but this is such a juicy topic, I couldn't resist
Laws against drugs are nowhere near as effective as social stigma against their use.
This is the case that I have been trying to advocate among my philosophical contemporaries (read: friends) for a very long time.
The key is to make the use of drugs socially unacceptable, at which point the laws are irrelevant. People who for whatever reason want to use drugs are still going to, but their use is much less likely to balloon into widespread use
Here's where we run into a bit of disagreement. Social stigma will always be used to steer society in a way the majority (or the most vocal component) want it to be steered. Where the US has gone wrong, in my opinion, is by criminalizing the use and possession of drugs (in general) and the demonizing of their users.
The best determinant for just laws in America, or at least laws that step on as few undeserving toes as possible, is the harm principle. The only reason that drug laws can be justified is the price the country has to pay (taxes, insurance premiums) to pay for the medical care of people who cannot control their use of (any) drug. (And the corollaries like crime caused to fuel addictions which is generally rare, and violence caused by addicts [rare, too, but I acknowldge that many people and familes are broken up by alcoholism, for example]).
The ostensible justification of all these laws, however, is usually moral. The idea that the drugs are either inherently bad or are directly causal to evil behavior.
Aside from the philosphical untenability of drug laws (the government has no place telling me what I can and cannot put in my body, so long as I make an informed decision), the entire War on Drugs runs afoul of just about every civil liberty that every American is supposedly guaranteed. If you look at the history of the War on Drugs, you can trace a consistent erosion of civil liberties and a consistent harshening of Police tactics and goals.
I wonder how people would react if a serious candidate for serious office said something like this. (Probably ignored, judging from the reponse Libertarian candidates have garnered)
Dylan was so groundbreaking because no one had ever done anything like it before -- but that was because rock and roll hadn't been around that long. Dylan himself is not particularly special; if he came along today, he'd probably be considered a talented artist, but hardly groundbreaking.
Pssht, yeah. I mean that Jakob kid's nothing out of the ordinary.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.shadowgalaxy.net/Vendetta/
Alan Moore, as always, tends to say it best.
"Do you want to know more?"
I, too, harbor a good deal of nostalgia and sometimes lament the much-touted 'fall of the arcade'. But when I come to my senses, I realize that said 'fall' is not a fact of history, but a misunderstanding made by many people.
What arcades have historically tried to sell is an experience. The videogame was (and still is) central to that experience, until the popularization of the first generation of consoles (The Atari 2600, Colecovision, etc. -- the early home computers were already a niche market), the idea of playing videogames at a non-commercial venue was simply impractical.
So the videogame was largely the experience.
With the popularization and explosion in power of home consoles and PCs (architecture-neutral term), people can play any old game at home. In fact, with the popularization of multiplayer games, particularly Internet-centric multiplayers games, the 'home' experience is often superior to that of the arcade.
What most people miss, however, is that in a few select regions (notably California and New York City), the social aspect of gaming is coming back. Many have mentioned Dance Dance Revolution, even if only in passing. I think that DDR is a revolution in more ways than just name; while the DDR "game experience" can conceivably be replicated at home (though, of course, with inferior input), the social experience of DDR can not be so easily replicated.
Communities have developed around DDR that are inherently friendly and inherently communicative. Even for one-time or very occasional players, the very act of getting up on the pad and moving your body to the music strikes a very primal chord with most people. At an "everday" arcade when a player steps up to a previously unoccupied DDR machine, a crowd forms around him and marvels, and cheers on! This social experience isn't just a benefit to the player, spectating is often extremely entertaining, especially while watching experts or freestylers.
The arcade isn't dead, it has just had to evolve.
YES! I actually thought this particular one was so subtle that it was probably the animators who chose to put it in, not the director. Pay attention to when our heroes are escaping from the undead pygmies and are crossing the bridge. Rick O'Connell throws a stick of dynamite at the log bridge and it explodes. One particular pygmy rides the pieces of wood down into the ravine like a cowboy.
--
Shake and shake
the ketchup bottle.
None will come,
That introduced ambiguity by itself should be enough of a reason to hold back on declaring VKP legal. No no no no no! We live in a society built on negative freedom! I am free to do whatever I want unless society deems it unacceptable and therefore illegal, not the other way around. If you let others convince you that you must ask permission to do something, you are clasping your own manacles shut. -Tal
--
Shake and shake
the ketchup bottle.
None will come,
You'd be surprised. During the spring semester of 2000 (just last semester), me and a few of my intrepid buddies blew off steam during near-finals time by playing Contra.
Now we didn't just play the game, playing the game became The Way.
Indeed, since we were ground down so hard by our studies (we're Mechanical and Electrical Engineers at the Cooper Union, in New York City), we simultaneously bonded and got out healthy agression by playing Contra.
By the time finals rolled around, and in the post-finals celebratory haze, we considered a game of Contra only really won if yout beat it without losing a single life (single player, too, but better 2-player).
I can still recall cheering on your buds when watching, violently screaming at your (in)competent partner when playing, and generally socializing over a good game.
Besides, how can anyone claim Tecmo Superbowl was not a cultural milestone of gigantic importance?
-Tal
--
Shake and shake
the ketchup bottle.
None will come,
-Tal
For those know in-the-know, Something Awful is an often hilarious page of humor written by one Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka, and is somewhat game-oriented in much of its humor. One featured page is "Cranky Steve's Whorehouse" which reviews Quake (and its descendants, relatives) maps that are truly and hellaciously awful. One hallmark of bad maps, and this one in particular is the overuse of colored lighting.
So imagine what happens when everywhere you go, the same type of people who write these godawful Quake maps get the bright idea to use these multicolored lights in real life?
Right
-Tal
A mother should never be outraged when her child asks 'what is that'. She should be proud.
-Tal
Laws against drugs are nowhere near as effective as social stigma against their use.
This is the case that I have been trying to advocate among my philosophical contemporaries (read: friends) for a very long time.
The key is to make the use of drugs socially unacceptable, at which point the laws are irrelevant. People who for whatever reason want to use drugs are still going to, but their use is much less likely to balloon into widespread use
Here's where we run into a bit of disagreement. Social stigma will always be used to steer society in a way the majority (or the most vocal component) want it to be steered. Where the US has gone wrong, in my opinion, is by criminalizing the use and possession of drugs (in general) and the demonizing of their users.
The best determinant for just laws in America, or at least laws that step on as few undeserving toes as possible, is the harm principle. The only reason that drug laws can be justified is the price the country has to pay (taxes, insurance premiums) to pay for the medical care of people who cannot control their use of (any) drug. (And the corollaries like crime caused to fuel addictions which is generally rare, and violence caused by addicts [rare, too, but I acknowldge that many people and familes are broken up by alcoholism, for example]).
The ostensible justification of all these laws, however, is usually moral. The idea that the drugs are either inherently bad or are directly causal to evil behavior.
Aside from the philosphical untenability of drug laws (the government has no place telling me what I can and cannot put in my body, so long as I make an informed decision), the entire War on Drugs runs afoul of just about every civil liberty that every American is supposedly guaranteed. If you look at the history of the War on Drugs, you can trace a consistent erosion of civil liberties and a consistent harshening of Police tactics and goals.
I wonder how people would react if a serious candidate for serious office said something like this. (Probably ignored, judging from the reponse Libertarian candidates have garnered)
-Tal
Pssht, yeah. I mean that Jakob kid's nothing out of the ordinary.