Assuming you don't play through it multiple times, why wouldn't it?
Many people do play through those games multiple times.
The developers could then shift those resources (which the male dwarf fighter player gets no benefit from) to writing deeper dialog.
They could, but really, often they don't. I don't think the story line in any of the first person shooters is any richer than the story lines of MMO's like WoW or games like Oblivion. Quite the opposite in fact. My argument isn that character customization leads to richer worlds, just that the thesis of the article assumes that it necessarily leads to narratively impoverished worlds, and this is demonstrably false.
I see what you're saying if you require multiple play-throughs.
Keep in mind that it's often the players who want a game that's playable multiple times, with different characters. Any multi-threaded game can be played once with marginal damage to the meta-story and no damage at all to the story that one player experiences.
But if you do that, there's really not customization after all—everyone's total experience ends up the same after they finish their multiple playthroughs.
Be careful not to confound the two types of customization -- character customization is not the same as story customization. You still really do have character customization, even if players who play all threads get the same story. And really, in a game like WoW (or even Oblivion) few players play all the threads, and thus most players traverse the meta-story in different ways.
Character customization is also a gift to role-playing characters. I often imagine my own back-story or narrative elements, and find that a custom character helps this. It's hard to add anything of your own to a game when you play the same old master chief each time through. Much easier when you can customize a character, and let your idea of that character determine how you play the game. The best games anticipate this and structure the gameplay accordingly.
Many (but obviously not all) players use character customization for things other than psychic armor. And many game designers rise to the challenge of creating a rich narrative while also offering character customization to the players. Gamers use customization as a catalyst for their own imaginations, or as a determinant or complement to their play style, or simply as visual variation. Game designers use character customization as a source of more complex, nuanced story lines, and deeper, more detailed back stories. Why throw away what can be (and often is) a greatly enriching component of gameplay?
I think that this depth/breadth dichotomy is misleading. It's not a given that a game with character customization necessarily leads to shallower stories. In fact I can definitely think of examples where the customization enriches the narrative. WoW, Oblivion (and other Elder Scrolls fare) and to a lesser extent NWN are all heavy on the narrative, while having rich customization controls. In those games, the avatar you create impacts the nature of the narrative you as gamer experience, and playing multiple avatars allows the player to experience a complex, multi-layered world, as well as a detailed and complex meta-narrative.
Do you think that having one avatar in WoW or Oblivion would make the story richer?
The reason for the appearance of this dichotomy is much simpler: it's easy to make content creation engines, because the work's already been done. It's much harder to create a good narrative in a gamespace. There is no philosophical reason why you can't have both.
You still don't get it, do you? Go back and look over my posts to you, and re-read them, and ask yourself this: where in those posts did I once even dispute any fact, claim or reference that you've made here?
No seriously, go back and check. The post will wait.
Did you check? If you did, you'd have noticed that not once have I tried to argue you about H1N1, obesity, the efficacy of hygeine in flu prevention, or anything else. I made one comment about your ignorance, in general terms, but that's it.
I read your posts, immediately had the urge to disagree with everything you've said, and then asked myself why. I came to the conclusion that it was your combative, insulting tone that put me off your message. I thought (more fool me) that you would maybe be wondering why everyone was flaming you, ignoring your sources and trashing your posts. Apparently, I was wrong. Won't be the last time, no doubt. But not to worry, I won't give you any grief over your combative (and counter-productive) style, ever again. You clearly either don't care, or are incapable of recognizing that you even have a problem. Either way, it's really none of my business, so merry trolling to you, sir.
If you're trying to lose the weight, you have my sympathies (a waist is a terrible thing to mind:-) If not, not.
So do you really think, after that lengthy and ignorant diatribe, that your sympathies mean anything to me? For the record, I am trying to lose weight, and yes it is hard (harder than quitting smoking, which I've already done). But whatever. This isn't a talk show, and I'm not going to wade through your post and point out everything wrong with it, because you're not worth the time. I'm also not going to whine to you about how hard it is, and all that shit, because you don't care. And I can even respect that. All I really want to know is; if I can learn how to control what goes into my mouth, and how much, can you learn how to control the steaming brown flow of shit streaming from your own?
More seriously, Obama winning the prize reflects poorly on the Nobel committee, not on him.
I worked in a pizza place where the manager had an interesting strategy for improving the performance of some employees. He would give a particular employee, who'd been slacking, the Employee of the Month Award. Getting this award would often encourage that employee to pick it up, and they'd become diligent enough to deserve the award. Maybe the Nobel committee is hoping for the same effect here? They gave a Peace prize to Yasser Arafat some time ago as well, as I recall.
You know, you might get people to take your arguments more seriously, if you didn't write so much like an asshole. Just sayin'.
I did read most of your points, and I do think you may have some points, but your presentation stinks to high heaven. Slagging off large parts of your audience isn't a great way to get people to take you seriously (fat slobs? You think firing around that aspersion here on slashdot is going to win you many allies? As one of the aforementioned fat slobs, I'd be sorely tempted to bloody your nose for you, for that one, if I ever got the chance) .
Your posts make you sound like a crank with an axe to grind, no matter how good your citations are.
That in itself wouldn't be enough to reform tort law. Here in Ontario judges have the power to declare a person a "vexatious litigant", but it's used rarely. Your day in court is as fundamental a freedom as the freedom of speech, and judges are very wary of taking it away from people. We studied one case last year where a guy (I think he was a paralegal) filed over 70 suits before eventually someone even moved to have him declared a vexatious litigant.
I think if you want to reform the tort system, you need to start with things like eliminating double- and treble-damages awards, statutory damages awards like the copyright damages award system, and the like; they provide too much incentive to litigants. In Ontario the general rule (with exceptions) is that you have to prove your actual damages, and you get your actual damages, period. This would bring down the giant damages awards. Next would be to look at awarding costs more often to the winner of the case, and to set up costs-awards rules to encourage settlement. For example, here in Ontario, if the defendant offers, say $50k, and the plaintiff rejects it and wins $40k at trial, the plaintiff (the winner) has to pay the defendant's (loser) costs from the date the offer was made.
These would be a good start (but not perfect, Ontario is in need of tort reform as well).*
*note that I'm throwing these out as possible ideas, not as a criticism of the US justice system, which I don't know that much about. Some of these ideas may already be implemented in some states (for example, I'm pretty sure that not all states have double- and triple-indemnity rules).
I don't buy that. If your press tarnishes your brand, it's not good press. If people start laughing at your product, because of your shitty ads, that's not good for your product. It's not enough to get your name out there (who hasn't heard of Microsoft, or Windows?) you have to add some sparkle to your brand or you're wasting your money. Microsoft has gotten very bad at this lately.
Is it just me, or have all these people launched a flamewar against you because they misunderstood the tone of what you said? Because I definitely didn't get the feeling you were trying to insult cjfs when you told him his opinion "didn't matter." I considered trying to explain this to the flame warriors, but there are so many of them now that I'm doubting my reading of your post....
(isn't slashdot fun? Nowhere else have I been online where so many people can get so enraged at so little)
Well, I for one don't agree that it's nonsense. Unless you've never had to make that choice, you have no idea how hard it is. The fact is, whatever the law says, that desperate people will do desperate things, when the alternative to stealing is to let your family go hungry, you're going to do what you have to do. You may live in a Dickensian moral universe where it's okay to let the weakest and most desperate rot in prison or starve, but I do not.
Slashdot Mirror
(and it's not that awesome yet).
Assuming you don't play through it multiple times, why wouldn't it?
Many people do play through those games multiple times.
The developers could then shift those resources (which the male dwarf fighter player gets no benefit from) to writing deeper dialog.
They could, but really, often they don't. I don't think the story line in any of the first person shooters is any richer than the story lines of MMO's like WoW or games like Oblivion. Quite the opposite in fact. My argument isn that character customization leads to richer worlds, just that the thesis of the article assumes that it necessarily leads to narratively impoverished worlds, and this is demonstrably false.
I see what you're saying if you require multiple play-throughs.
Keep in mind that it's often the players who want a game that's playable multiple times, with different characters. Any multi-threaded game can be played once with marginal damage to the meta-story and no damage at all to the story that one player experiences.
But if you do that, there's really not customization after all—everyone's total experience ends up the same after they finish their multiple playthroughs.
Be careful not to confound the two types of customization -- character customization is not the same as story customization. You still really do have character customization, even if players who play all threads get the same story. And really, in a game like WoW (or even Oblivion) few players play all the threads, and thus most players traverse the meta-story in different ways.
Character customization is also a gift to role-playing characters. I often imagine my own back-story or narrative elements, and find that a custom character helps this. It's hard to add anything of your own to a game when you play the same old master chief each time through. Much easier when you can customize a character, and let your idea of that character determine how you play the game. The best games anticipate this and structure the gameplay accordingly.
Many (but obviously not all) players use character customization for things other than psychic armor. And many game designers rise to the challenge of creating a rich narrative while also offering character customization to the players. Gamers use customization as a catalyst for their own imaginations, or as a determinant or complement to their play style, or simply as visual variation. Game designers use character customization as a source of more complex, nuanced story lines, and deeper, more detailed back stories. Why throw away what can be (and often is) a greatly enriching component of gameplay?
The article embiggened my mind, no question.
I think that this depth/breadth dichotomy is misleading. It's not a given that a game with character customization necessarily leads to shallower stories. In fact I can definitely think of examples where the customization enriches the narrative. WoW, Oblivion (and other Elder Scrolls fare) and to a lesser extent NWN are all heavy on the narrative, while having rich customization controls. In those games, the avatar you create impacts the nature of the narrative you as gamer experience, and playing multiple avatars allows the player to experience a complex, multi-layered world, as well as a detailed and complex meta-narrative.
Do you think that having one avatar in WoW or Oblivion would make the story richer?
The reason for the appearance of this dichotomy is much simpler: it's easy to make content creation engines, because the work's already been done. It's much harder to create a good narrative in a gamespace. There is no philosophical reason why you can't have both.
Hopefully if it were being edited for an academic paper, he would not get to assume the points he's trying to prove.
You still don't get it, do you? Go back and look over my posts to you, and re-read them, and ask yourself this: where in those posts did I once even dispute any fact, claim or reference that you've made here?
No seriously, go back and check. The post will wait.
Did you check? If you did, you'd have noticed that not once have I tried to argue you about H1N1, obesity, the efficacy of hygeine in flu prevention, or anything else. I made one comment about your ignorance, in general terms, but that's it.
I read your posts, immediately had the urge to disagree with everything you've said, and then asked myself why. I came to the conclusion that it was your combative, insulting tone that put me off your message. I thought (more fool me) that you would maybe be wondering why everyone was flaming you, ignoring your sources and trashing your posts. Apparently, I was wrong. Won't be the last time, no doubt. But not to worry, I won't give you any grief over your combative (and counter-productive) style, ever again. You clearly either don't care, or are incapable of recognizing that you even have a problem. Either way, it's really none of my business, so merry trolling to you, sir.
If you're trying to lose the weight, you have my sympathies (a waist is a terrible thing to mind :-) If not, not.
So do you really think, after that lengthy and ignorant diatribe, that your sympathies mean anything to me? For the record, I am trying to lose weight, and yes it is hard (harder than quitting smoking, which I've already done). But whatever. This isn't a talk show, and I'm not going to wade through your post and point out everything wrong with it, because you're not worth the time. I'm also not going to whine to you about how hard it is, and all that shit, because you don't care. And I can even respect that. All I really want to know is; if I can learn how to control what goes into my mouth, and how much, can you learn how to control the steaming brown flow of shit streaming from your own?
More seriously, Obama winning the prize reflects poorly on the Nobel committee, not on him.
I worked in a pizza place where the manager had an interesting strategy for improving the performance of some employees. He would give a particular employee, who'd been slacking, the Employee of the Month Award. Getting this award would often encourage that employee to pick it up, and they'd become diligent enough to deserve the award. Maybe the Nobel committee is hoping for the same effect here? They gave a Peace prize to Yasser Arafat some time ago as well, as I recall.
But surely you've noticed that you give up all your rights when you go to work?
You know, you might get people to take your arguments more seriously, if you didn't write so much like an asshole. Just sayin'.
I did read most of your points, and I do think you may have some points, but your presentation stinks to high heaven. Slagging off large parts of your audience isn't a great way to get people to take you seriously (fat slobs? You think firing around that aspersion here on slashdot is going to win you many allies? As one of the aforementioned fat slobs, I'd be sorely tempted to bloody your nose for you, for that one, if I ever got the chance) .
Your posts make you sound like a crank with an axe to grind, no matter how good your citations are.
You might want to consider breaking your, er, writing up into paragraphs. If you want anyone to read your posts, anyway.
If the account has lots of titles and no applications or lots of tiny do nothing, similar sized programs, purge and ban.
Whoa there. A solution like that would remove over 90% of the App Store.
I don't see why that's a problem.
Not in Chicago.
I don't think it is...more's the pity.
Ferocious nerds with no life? Check.
That in itself wouldn't be enough to reform tort law. Here in Ontario judges have the power to declare a person a "vexatious litigant", but it's used rarely. Your day in court is as fundamental a freedom as the freedom of speech, and judges are very wary of taking it away from people. We studied one case last year where a guy (I think he was a paralegal) filed over 70 suits before eventually someone even moved to have him declared a vexatious litigant.
I think if you want to reform the tort system, you need to start with things like eliminating double- and treble-damages awards, statutory damages awards like the copyright damages award system, and the like; they provide too much incentive to litigants. In Ontario the general rule (with exceptions) is that you have to prove your actual damages, and you get your actual damages, period. This would bring down the giant damages awards. Next would be to look at awarding costs more often to the winner of the case, and to set up costs-awards rules to encourage settlement. For example, here in Ontario, if the defendant offers, say $50k, and the plaintiff rejects it and wins $40k at trial, the plaintiff (the winner) has to pay the defendant's (loser) costs from the date the offer was made.
These would be a good start (but not perfect, Ontario is in need of tort reform as well).*
*note that I'm throwing these out as possible ideas, not as a criticism of the US justice system, which I don't know that much about. Some of these ideas may already be implemented in some states (for example, I'm pretty sure that not all states have double- and triple-indemnity rules).
I've heard of it happening, and I've heard of shop owners who've gotten busted for it.
But what happens when iTunes refuses to identify her new heart as an iPhone?
I believe I was just told the other day that the same standard applies to Emergency Med Techs.
How about:
"Paramedics/Doctors: USB port for resuscitation and diagnostics is located under left breast. Use clean power supply when connecting to heart."
I don't buy that. If your press tarnishes your brand, it's not good press. If people start laughing at your product, because of your shitty ads, that's not good for your product. It's not enough to get your name out there (who hasn't heard of Microsoft, or Windows?) you have to add some sparkle to your brand or you're wasting your money. Microsoft has gotten very bad at this lately.
How much money do you think their marketing made for them, as opposed to their monopoly?
Is it just me, or have all these people launched a flamewar against you because they misunderstood the tone of what you said? Because I definitely didn't get the feeling you were trying to insult cjfs when you told him his opinion "didn't matter." I considered trying to explain this to the flame warriors, but there are so many of them now that I'm doubting my reading of your post....
(isn't slashdot fun? Nowhere else have I been online where so many people can get so enraged at so little)
Actually, it sounded to me like someone who would install a Microsoft beta, and has had his opinion ignored. Perhaps several times.
Well, I for one don't agree that it's nonsense. Unless you've never had to make that choice, you have no idea how hard it is. The fact is, whatever the law says, that desperate people will do desperate things, when the alternative to stealing is to let your family go hungry, you're going to do what you have to do. You may live in a Dickensian moral universe where it's okay to let the weakest and most desperate rot in prison or starve, but I do not.