I'm just wondering whether or not they tested the stinkin thing.
Didn't the 'in the wild' phones that they used to test have some sort of cover to make it look like a regular iphone? That would have kept them from experiencing the problem.
I'm not saying they can't continue the story in a sequel. I'm saying it's freakishly annoying to only give you one-third of the same story per game.
It would be like taking the Wheel of Time series and stripping out every chapter that's written from Perrin's point of view and selling it as a separate add-on series, without lowering the cost of the original books.
Orson Scott Card did it with "Ender's Shadow"; which was "Ender's Game" told from a different character's point of view. I didn't feel cheated by either book (admittedly it's a stretch to consider this similar to the SC2 issue, but it was your analogy).
Aside from that; lack of LAN play seems like a perfectly valid reason not to buy a game. It's not a good reason to develop a persecution complex, though.
I highly recommend getting the HHGTTG audio books, especially for people who preferred the radio drama. Douglas Adams has an amazing reading voice; There is a lot of humor that he puts into his reading that never would have translated as well from the book alone.
I'm not a particularly good Go Player (18k I think was the best I managed on Kiseido when I was playing), so what I have to say should be taken with a grain of salt. (I am also terrible at chess and cards)
go is no where near as complex as chess, it just happens to have a very big board with almost no limitations on rules. this isn't complexity! this is called a very large tree of possible moves. large tree =! complex.
I think the mistake you are making is in assuming that people think Go is complex because it has a large tree. This isn't the case. The reason it is complex is because there are many 'concepts' in Go that you need to be able to grasp in order to be able to play the game effectively. These concepts in many ways serve the same purpose as 'rules' in chess, but are not defined by the game itself.
Hell, try teaching a beginner about life and death (one of the basic concepts in go) and you'll laugh at the thought of someone saying "Go is no where near as complex as chess". (Life and Death is about as fundamental as understanding how Chess pieces move/attack, but a *LOT* more difficult to grasp.)
playing a game of poker with 20 decks greatly increases the possible hands that are dealt, but this doesn't inherently make poker more complex. take any game and increase the game board size and simplify the rules and you get a bigger tree.
Greatly increases the possible hands that are dealt... by 1! (5 of a kind)
It appears I was using an incorrect definition of free will. It was just a funny thought I had when I read it. The rest of the column wasn't bad, and if you read the rest of my post you will see that I wasn't so flippant about the actual content of the study (well, at least the part the column shared), nor the rest of the column. Deciding to be fair, I re-read your post and the parents.
The first paragraph was a fairly neutral piece of information about the article you read (and was quite interesting).
The second paragraph flippantly (and baselessly) insulted the conclusions of the article.
The most generous interpretation I can come up with is that you were being ironic, but it comes off more as joining the parent in his disdain for game based journalism.
Speaking of strawmen and slogans, "It's inconvenient, so it can't be true", and "I don't want to believe it, so it can't be true" are absolute doozies. In my mind, it wasn't directed at you but more in general at the knee-jerk reaction that any anti-gaming article engenders. Still, you have a point.
I think you are misunderstanding what is meant when they talk about 'leaving a generation without free will'. They don't mean that it is a generation that is 'trained to obey without thought' but rather a generation that will always choose the option with the most immediate reward.
At least consider some of the implications of being addicted to Instant Gratification
Credit - Why wait until you can afford something, when you can buy it now!
Education - Why bother finishing highschool, just get a job flipping burgers and you can start making money now!
Moving Out - Why move out, you can stay at home for free and spend all your money on fun things!
Maybe Video Games aren't to blame or at least not the only ones to blame, but it's not something that should be written off without any further thought.
The study apparently concluded (somehow) that video games were leaving a generation without free will. If that's the case, then there is a very simple solution: parents just need to tell their kids not to play them. Having no free will, they will have no choice but to obey! They certainly won't, oh I don't know, go behind their parents' backs and play them anyway, right?
I don't know why, but I find myself being almost physically disgusted by your response to the column.
(See: Straw Man Argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
I hate how often people follow the "It's inconvenient, so it can't be true" or "I don't want to believe it, so it can't be true" line of logic. It's just as ridiculous as the most extreme fundamentalism in religions.
[quote]One (very macabre) way of looking at it is that it's an insurance policy. You pay the price of a moderate number of gun deaths per year to keep the government in check and therefore help avoid such a revolution.[/quote]
How's that working out for yah?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just wondering whether or not they tested the stinkin thing.
Didn't the 'in the wild' phones that they used to test have some sort of cover to make it look like a regular iphone? That would have kept them from experiencing the problem.
I'm not saying they can't continue the story in a sequel. I'm saying it's freakishly annoying to only give you one-third of the same story per game.
It would be like taking the Wheel of Time series and stripping out every chapter that's written from Perrin's point of view and selling it as a separate add-on series, without lowering the cost of the original books.
Orson Scott Card did it with "Ender's Shadow"; which was "Ender's Game" told from a different character's point of view. I didn't feel cheated by either book (admittedly it's a stretch to consider this similar to the SC2 issue, but it was your analogy).
Aside from that; lack of LAN play seems like a perfectly valid reason not to buy a game. It's not a good reason to develop a persecution complex, though.
What part of speech is "eh?"
Punctuation!
I highly recommend getting the HHGTTG audio books, especially for people who preferred the radio drama. Douglas Adams has an amazing reading voice; There is a lot of humor that he puts into his reading that never would have translated as well from the book alone.
go is no where near as complex as chess, it just happens to have a very big board with almost no limitations on rules. this isn't complexity! this is called a very large tree of possible moves. large tree =! complex.
I think the mistake you are making is in assuming that people think Go is complex because it has a large tree. This isn't the case. The reason it is complex is because there are many 'concepts' in Go that you need to be able to grasp in order to be able to play the game effectively. These concepts in many ways serve the same purpose as 'rules' in chess, but are not defined by the game itself.
Hell, try teaching a beginner about life and death (one of the basic concepts in go) and you'll laugh at the thought of someone saying "Go is no where near as complex as chess". (Life and Death is about as fundamental as understanding how Chess pieces move/attack, but a *LOT* more difficult to grasp.)
playing a game of poker with 20 decks greatly increases the possible hands that are dealt, but this doesn't inherently make poker more complex. take any game and increase the game board size and simplify the rules and you get a bigger tree.
Greatly increases the possible hands that are dealt... by 1! (5 of a kind)
The first paragraph was a fairly neutral piece of information about the article you read (and was quite interesting).
The second paragraph flippantly (and baselessly) insulted the conclusions of the article.
The most generous interpretation I can come up with is that you were being ironic, but it comes off more as joining the parent in his disdain for game based journalism.
Speaking of strawmen and slogans, "It's inconvenient, so it can't be true", and "I don't want to believe it, so it can't be true" are absolute doozies. In my mind, it wasn't directed at you but more in general at the knee-jerk reaction that any anti-gaming article engenders. Still, you have a point.
Free Will - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
At least consider some of the implications of being addicted to Instant Gratification
Credit - Why wait until you can afford something, when you can buy it now!
Education - Why bother finishing highschool, just get a job flipping burgers and you can start making money now!
Moving Out - Why move out, you can stay at home for free and spend all your money on fun things!
Maybe Video Games aren't to blame or at least not the only ones to blame, but it's not something that should be written off without any further thought.
The study apparently concluded (somehow) that video games were leaving a generation without free will. If that's the case, then there is a very simple solution: parents just need to tell their kids not to play them. Having no free will, they will have no choice but to obey! They certainly won't, oh I don't know, go behind their parents' backs and play them anyway, right?
I don't know why, but I find myself being almost physically disgusted by your response to the column.
(See: Straw Man Argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
I hate how often people follow the "It's inconvenient, so it can't be true" or "I don't want to believe it, so it can't be true" line of logic. It's just as ridiculous as the most extreme fundamentalism in religions.
[quote]One (very macabre) way of looking at it is that it's an insurance policy. You pay the price of a moderate number of gun deaths per year to keep the government in check and therefore help avoid such a revolution.[/quote] How's that working out for yah?