and, and what about privacy? right or not? what about libel and slander? "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can say what you want in all cases, that's rather obvious, so what's your point really? if you cry "freedom of speech" for every single thing, like wikipedia trivia, that just makes it cheap.
I don't even know what the "Yu" are, and I'm not gonna look that up either. the Yu, what and whoever they are, are a clump of happiness, that's good enough for me, and great for them ^_^
In theory, the right to be forgotten addresses an urgent problem in the digital age: it is very hard to escape your past on the Internet now that every photo, status update, and tweet lives forever in the cloud. But Europeans and Americans have diametrically opposed approaches to the problem. In Europe, the intellectual roots of the right to be forgotten can be found in French law, which recognizes le droit à l’oubli—or the “right of oblivion”—a right that allows a convicted criminal who has served his time and been rehabilitated to object to the publication of the facts of his conviction and incarceration. In America, by contrast, publication of someone’s criminal history is protected by the First Amendment, leading Wikipedia to resist the efforts by two Germans convicted of murdering a famous actor to remove their criminal history from the actor’s Wikipedia page.
here is something that might interest you, or offend you (thinking of that other poster who thought I was "too nice" or whatever). it helped me however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-hTxDvRVlo
one thing I can't and don't want to get away from: I DO know there are "good people who happen to be muslim", and I'm not ready to condemn a nation or a faith just like that. but yes, the god in the bible as well as in the quran is an autocratic asshole (I say that as someone who was looking for god in both books -- think of that what you will, I don't care I have my reasons and others have theirs). but it's exactly that total autocracy, and the knowledge of humble, great human beings who are muslim or christian and who DO believe all of that (but weigh it differently and more lovingly than others I guess), which means I cannot simply blame it on the quran or the bible. I know those books can just as well be used for good, and it could be argued that beheading that young man does more offense to mohammed and allah than all words in the whole world combined -- those and opposing viewpoints do exist and have arguments them that do have merit, IMO. ultimately, it's about people... as someone else said, if they didn't use that, they'd use something else, and I think there is something to that. I don't think banning the bible and the quran would improve the world one bit. people can make armbands out of nothing, and wear them with great fervor. that's not to excuse the current armbands that are used though. I guess I'm rambling sorry:P
how is "being emotionally involved" not like a drug or masturbation, and how is something that involves a challenge as well as clear indicators of success like that? (try to not get too distracted by the vicinity of masturation and "clear indicator of success", if you can do that at all)
if I want a story, I want that story. if it's interlinked with gameplay that's fine, but then I want that to be gameplay, not just a cheap excuse for gameplay, glue for the "content". this by definition means stories I might potentially never see the end of if I can't beat the game. so I'm thinking, let movies and books do that, they do it better anyway, and let games be, uhhh, games. a challenge when played solitary and something to have fun and and compete when played with others.
simply put, add some story and atmosphere to gameplay, not the other way around... what's so hard to understand about that? but hey, if "that's gay" and non-sequiturs is all you got, then that's all you got, and you're not projecting at all.
in other words, you're doing the work for them. you know, telling a good and deep story in a book of reaonable size, or a movie of reasonable length, is lauded for a reason. it ain't easy, and it's hard if not impossible to fake.
with games, you have 500 people slapping together 1% of that story depth for millions of dollars, and millions of revenue. not because the stories are good, but because they exploit the desire of people to feel as if they're doing stuff. so you end up with 100 hours of gameplay and a story that could be told in 10 minutes and would suck even then. I'm sorry, but I just feel like people are being fleeced. sure, it's voluntary, but so are all sorts of things, like overeating and dying of obesity. there's no way I would change my judgement just because people like doing it.
No, button mashing isn't dependant on the frequency or anything like that, and clicking every 30 seconds so the plot moves on is button mashing par excellence, just cleverly (heh) disguised. Farmville is button mashing: there are no wrong buttons. That's button mashing. Few of the greats of gaming history had "story", but all of them had atmosphere. but the motivation always was "here's a challenge, should you accept it"... NOT just "would you like to know more??". That's boring, and I get better stories in thrift store books or movies. If I wanted a story, I'd go to those who actually are good at telling them, not people who make games.
In the case of getting to that rock, the motivation is pretty obvious, so you don't die and have to restart the game. Or, as I said, because it's a challenge to get to the next rock, simple as that. Why do kids ride bikes? Because it's fun. The brain knows when it is being challenged and likes that. How is that not motivation enough?
People who make games to "tell stories" are just wusses who don't dare to be a nobody in the movie or book world (more likely, they're greedy liars but that can't be proven so why go there). There, I said it. I know there are exceptions, but they are so rare and the 99% of the games tell you the most idiotic stories with a straight face, and only get away with it because they also have a "put the square peg into the round hole" element. WTF is up with that. I *love* that stuff being called out by people who actually are in the industry and successful at making games, not just armchair critics like me:D
oh, and I did have pirates! as a, uhm, pirated copy at first. then I bought it because I wanted the manual and no cracker graffiti, and when the disc died, I bought it again. suck on that, mediocre fast-food game makers.
To be honest though, Civilization had some character. It did start out with the genesis of earth after all, you could build your palace (as sucky as that was, they tried I guess), it had newspaper clippings and music and nations with different emissaries and music... if you stripped all that away, it wouldn't have had quite that appeal outside of hardcore strategy gaming. Or hey, take Alpha Centauri, and the quotes in it.
Sure, that stuff in both cases was added to a game that had good mechanics. But I can also recall strategy games a friend liked a lot and which I found sooo boring (anyone know "Empire Deluxe" on the PC? Bleh!:P). So, I'm not so sure if you're not overlooking something, or maybe throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
While we're speaking of Sid Meier: "Pirates!" - ! In Germany it was in place #1 of the all time charts of at least one Amiga magazine for 52 months. 52 months.. Even if my memory fools me, and it was just 30 months (and it was NOT less than that, and it might very well have been 52), that's just fucking mindboggling. It boggled my mind back then, but compared to today??? BWAHAHAHA. *ahem*. That game was the definition of "the player is the story", and while it did have plenty of graphics, (procedural) plot, and last but not least sweet music, it ultimately was also about that score table at the end.. instead of "a bunch of meaningless statistics", which is what we tend to have today, because there's no way to loose or suck at a game anymore. The precious consumers might throw a fit or something.
yeah, or arkanoid. or tetris. or marble madness, or sensible soccer. or pinball. or basketball.
sure, on the other hand there's "another world", which ruled our socks as kids -- and if I'm honest, it didn't any gameplay other than trial and error haha! we still loved it to bits. but I think we ended up playing stuff like speedball 2 the most, which had both, atmosphere as well as gameplay. gameplay is the spine of it, or rather should be. at least if you want to call it a "game".
I think some people should simply bite the bullet and make computer movies, to get it out of their system... if they want to tell a story, let them tell a story, but don't bait people into mindless "interaction" as an alibi to do that and pretend it's a game when it's really not. not to mention the whole farmville brand recognition pokemon achievement whore slave bullshit fad that's so hot these days.
Consuming content isn't playing a game. And many games are exactly about that --- show stuff, don't frustrate the player with any actual challenge, make sure the game can be completed easily if you only really want to. Who cares about the properties of games, like the ability to win or loose them... because hey, you hired 2000 artists, might as well show off their work, right?
I mean sure, if that's what people want, and other people are actually up for giving that to them, I don't care. It's like bad cinema, exactly like that. Formulaic, shallow, mediocre, and mentally as cheap as they are expensive in terms of money. Bad cinema is firmly established, too, and it doesn't take away from good movies... but that doesn't it's not bad cinema. The only thing people get to vote with their wallets on in this case, is how many idiots there are out there, to paraphrase Immortal Technique haha... but them buying turds doesn't knight those turds.
That is exactly right. My failure to hate completely blindly and randomly is what lead to this. I will strive to adjust my worldview to make it more convenient and simple, and therefore more effective; so I, just like you, can keep the free world free.
that's a.) completely cool to the alternative, no protection of minors at all, and b.) pretty much restricted to the USA. so maybe that's the problem, not the age limit.
dude, don't stop there. can't you see? those people making a subreddit like "pre-teen girls" are totally undercover cops, who simply go about destroying reddit in the most efficient and straightforward way possible.
and you know why they make it so obvious? because that way nobody will believe it, because it's *too* obvious.
^ that's as fucking punk rock as you can get. reddit is basically one huge molotov cocktail, and the powers that be are taking it down for that reason. is there a way to donate money to the struggle here? this seems important.
well, you cannot separate "content" from context just like that. the context makes the content.
yes, in one case it's okay, in another the same thing is not so much okay. so? kinda like it's acceptable to show an image of the holocaust to educate about it, not so much subtitling it "let's do that again" etc. kinda like a butter knife is a-okay on the table, not so much when put into another person: the content is the same, but the context isn't. I don't see how that would confuse anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
and, and what about privacy? right or not? what about libel and slander? "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can say what you want in all cases, that's rather obvious, so what's your point really? if you cry "freedom of speech" for every single thing, like wikipedia trivia, that just makes it cheap.
sure, in the US. which is not the EU. so this is relevant, how?
I don't even know what the "Yu" are, and I'm not gonna look that up either. the Yu, what and whoever they are, are a clump of happiness, that's good enough for me, and great for them ^_^
more importantly, "absolute privacy" is a strawman? who's talking about absolute privacy?
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten
here is something that might interest you, or offend you (thinking of that other poster who thought I was "too nice" or whatever). it helped me however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-hTxDvRVlo
one thing I can't and don't want to get away from: I DO know there are "good people who happen to be muslim", and I'm not ready to condemn a nation or a faith just like that. but yes, the god in the bible as well as in the quran is an autocratic asshole (I say that as someone who was looking for god in both books -- think of that what you will, I don't care I have my reasons and others have theirs). but it's exactly that total autocracy, and the knowledge of humble, great human beings who are muslim or christian and who DO believe all of that (but weigh it differently and more lovingly than others I guess), which means I cannot simply blame it on the quran or the bible. I know those books can just as well be used for good, and it could be argued that beheading that young man does more offense to mohammed and allah than all words in the whole world combined -- those and opposing viewpoints do exist and have arguments them that do have merit, IMO. ultimately, it's about people... as someone else said, if they didn't use that, they'd use something else, and I think there is something to that. I don't think banning the bible and the quran would improve the world one bit. people can make armbands out of nothing, and wear them with great fervor. that's not to excuse the current armbands that are used though. I guess I'm rambling sorry :P
well, see my reply to that AC then. if you second it, you own it haha, and you seconded a mighty big fail of a post there :D
how is "being emotionally involved" not like a drug or masturbation, and how is something that involves a challenge as well as clear indicators of success like that? (try to not get too distracted by the vicinity of masturation and "clear indicator of success", if you can do that at all)
if I want a story, I want that story. if it's interlinked with gameplay that's fine, but then I want that to be gameplay, not just a cheap excuse for gameplay, glue for the "content". this by definition means stories I might potentially never see the end of if I can't beat the game. so I'm thinking, let movies and books do that, they do it better anyway, and let games be, uhhh, games. a challenge when played solitary and something to have fun and and compete when played with others.
simply put, add some story and atmosphere to gameplay, not the other way around... what's so hard to understand about that? but hey, if "that's gay" and non-sequiturs is all you got, then that's all you got, and you're not projecting at all.
in other words, you're doing the work for them. you know, telling a good and deep story in a book of reaonable size, or a movie of reasonable length, is lauded for a reason. it ain't easy, and it's hard if not impossible to fake.
with games, you have 500 people slapping together 1% of that story depth for millions of dollars, and millions of revenue. not because the stories are good, but because they exploit the desire of people to feel as if they're doing stuff. so you end up with 100 hours of gameplay and a story that could be told in 10 minutes and would suck even then. I'm sorry, but I just feel like people are being fleeced. sure, it's voluntary, but so are all sorts of things, like overeating and dying of obesity. there's no way I would change my judgement just because people like doing it.
Oops I made a mistake, that would be a "put the round peg into the round hole" element, oh well.
No, button mashing isn't dependant on the frequency or anything like that, and clicking every 30 seconds so the plot moves on is button mashing par excellence, just cleverly (heh) disguised. Farmville is button mashing: there are no wrong buttons. That's button mashing. Few of the greats of gaming history had "story", but all of them had atmosphere. but the motivation always was "here's a challenge, should you accept it"... NOT just "would you like to know more??". That's boring, and I get better stories in thrift store books or movies. If I wanted a story, I'd go to those who actually are good at telling them, not people who make games.
In the case of getting to that rock, the motivation is pretty obvious, so you don't die and have to restart the game. Or, as I said, because it's a challenge to get to the next rock, simple as that. Why do kids ride bikes? Because it's fun. The brain knows when it is being challenged and likes that. How is that not motivation enough?
People who make games to "tell stories" are just wusses who don't dare to be a nobody in the movie or book world (more likely, they're greedy liars but that can't be proven so why go there). There, I said it. I know there are exceptions, but they are so rare and the 99% of the games tell you the most idiotic stories with a straight face, and only get away with it because they also have a "put the square peg into the round hole" element. WTF is up with that. I *love* that stuff being called out by people who actually are in the industry and successful at making games, not just armchair critics like me :D
oh, and I did have pirates! as a, uhm, pirated copy at first. then I bought it because I wanted the manual and no cracker graffiti, and when the disc died, I bought it again. suck on that, mediocre fast-food game makers.
To be honest though, Civilization had some character. It did start out with the genesis of earth after all, you could build your palace (as sucky as that was, they tried I guess), it had newspaper clippings and music and nations with different emissaries and music... if you stripped all that away, it wouldn't have had quite that appeal outside of hardcore strategy gaming. Or hey, take Alpha Centauri, and the quotes in it.
Sure, that stuff in both cases was added to a game that had good mechanics. But I can also recall strategy games a friend liked a lot and which I found sooo boring (anyone know "Empire Deluxe" on the PC? Bleh! :P). So, I'm not so sure if you're not overlooking something, or maybe throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
While we're speaking of Sid Meier: "Pirates!" - ! In Germany it was in place #1 of the all time charts of at least one Amiga magazine for 52 months. 52 months.. Even if my memory fools me, and it was just 30 months (and it was NOT less than that, and it might very well have been 52), that's just fucking mindboggling. It boggled my mind back then, but compared to today??? BWAHAHAHA. *ahem*. That game was the definition of "the player is the story", and while it did have plenty of graphics, (procedural) plot, and last but not least sweet music, it ultimately was also about that score table at the end.. instead of "a bunch of meaningless statistics", which is what we tend to have today, because there's no way to loose or suck at a game anymore. The precious consumers might throw a fit or something.
yeah, or arkanoid. or tetris. or marble madness, or sensible soccer. or pinball. or basketball.
sure, on the other hand there's "another world", which ruled our socks as kids -- and if I'm honest, it didn't any gameplay other than trial and error haha! we still loved it to bits. but I think we ended up playing stuff like speedball 2 the most, which had both, atmosphere as well as gameplay. gameplay is the spine of it, or rather should be. at least if you want to call it a "game".
I think some people should simply bite the bullet and make computer movies, to get it out of their system... if they want to tell a story, let them tell a story, but don't bait people into mindless "interaction" as an alibi to do that and pretend it's a game when it's really not. not to mention the whole farmville brand recognition pokemon achievement whore slave bullshit fad that's so hot these days.
Consuming content isn't playing a game. And many games are exactly about that --- show stuff, don't frustrate the player with any actual challenge, make sure the game can be completed easily if you only really want to. Who cares about the properties of games, like the ability to win or loose them... because hey, you hired 2000 artists, might as well show off their work, right?
I mean sure, if that's what people want, and other people are actually up for giving that to them, I don't care. It's like bad cinema, exactly like that. Formulaic, shallow, mediocre, and mentally as cheap as they are expensive in terms of money. Bad cinema is firmly established, too, and it doesn't take away from good movies... but that doesn't it's not bad cinema. The only thing people get to vote with their wallets on in this case, is how many idiots there are out there, to paraphrase Immortal Technique haha... but them buying turds doesn't knight those turds.
That is exactly right. My failure to hate completely blindly and randomly is what lead to this. I will strive to adjust my worldview to make it more convenient and simple, and therefore more effective; so I, just like you, can keep the free world free.
that's the point. you only know that one comparison. click the link, cure the dumb.
come on, you can go lower.
whatever makes you happy dude.
lol? where's the contradiction, hmm?
next time you wanna come across all smart and hard and give me orders, don't just string words together with no relation to what you quote, muhah.
that's a.) completely cool to the alternative, no protection of minors at all, and b.) pretty much restricted to the USA. so maybe that's the problem, not the age limit.
no, my point is to not engage in dumb fucking sophistry.
and this is about reddit shutting down something very specific after all, not whatever slippery slope you're on about.
you're right. SA is up front and honest about the costs :P
dude, don't stop there. can't you see? those people making a subreddit like "pre-teen girls" are totally undercover cops, who simply go about destroying reddit in the most efficient and straightforward way possible.
and you know why they make it so obvious? because that way nobody will believe it, because it's *too* obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications
^ that's as fucking punk rock as you can get. reddit is basically one huge molotov cocktail, and the powers that be are taking it down for that reason. is there a way to donate money to the struggle here? this seems important.
well, you cannot separate "content" from context just like that. the context makes the content.
yes, in one case it's okay, in another the same thing is not so much okay. so? kinda like it's acceptable to show an image of the holocaust to educate about it, not so much subtitling it "let's do that again" etc. kinda like a butter knife is a-okay on the table, not so much when put into another person: the content is the same, but the context isn't. I don't see how that would confuse anyone.
holy crap, even I have trouble deciphering what I just wrote there, and I just wrote it! haha sorry.