I know you're joking, but his lack of knowledge about TV does not take away from his post. It may or may not actually work, but it's an interesting idea. And the fact that you're more concerned about him calling your TV show by the wrong name suggests that something like that might not be a bad idea. Certainly short clips during childrens' programs couldn't hurt. It'd certainly be more effective than boring kids with more standardized testing to illustrate to us just how slowly they're progressing, all while pounding it into their heads that nobody's better than anyone else at anything.
On topic: For god's sake, stop trying to legislate this crap and let the kids learn what they're interested in. Let the teachers who know how to teach actually do it instead of forcing them into standardized testing and arbitrary curricula that makes the kids' eyes glaze over. I know a number of elementary teachers (possibly the most critical stage of their development) and they all complain about the same thing: there aren't enough hours in the day to get everything done that they're now required to. Since they don't have enough time, it has to come out of the kids' down time and forces them to work in a manner they're not capable of. It seriously hurts their chances of wanting to learn on their own outside of school (Honestly, how many people that do IT or similar jobs want work extra hours? That's what it can be like for the kids if you push them too hard).
I'd like to rant more, but I'm already at work past my required hours to type this and I don't want to be here anymore...
And even if GIMP was an important stepping stone, that says exactly nothing about whether or not it should be included in the standard desktop. People can still install it if they want it. There's no need to clutter things up for 'normal' users.
Sins of a Solar Empire is a very good game. Some people complain that it doesn't have a campaign to play through; it's strictly custom games, but that didn't bother me. I sunk days/weeks into it back when I got it and I still go back to play periodically. It doesn't have age advancement exactly, but research is a very important part of the game (to allow colonization of certain types of planets, give new abilities, improve your weapons, etc).
If/when you get sick of the regular game, there are also lots of mods to change things up, including some based on movies/TV series (Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, etc). Definitely worth it, especially as it gets older and the price drops.
Aye, and any scientist/engineer with a degree from the last 20-30 years should be perfectly comfortable working with SI units. There are still hold outs, but they're just a few old fossils and managers. The people that do the actual science and engineering have no problem with SI.
If you were talking about almost any other situation, I'd probably agree with you, except that the one group exists solely to provide content to the other group. If the group that exists to provide content is not providing the content in a manner that is acceptable to the consuming group, then they are unnecessary and by rights should no longer exist, at least not in their current form.
No, I'm not saying we should necessarily get rid of the cable companies, but apply the same rules to all service industries. If the service provided is unnecessary or just plain bad, the company goes out of business. I admit that copyright issues are a problem, but you can't force your consumers to change their habits and buy your service. You need to adapt or at least find a middle ground.
The RIAA is trying to change their customers instead of adapting to the new landscape and look at how well they're doing.
I know you're joking, but I didn't feel like responding to the troll. Two things:
1) A big part of the money thing is personality. a) Some people (personality types) simply don't care about money. With me, for example, money is how I survive from day to day. More money is nice to have, but what really drives me is working on my projects, solving problems, etc. It doesn't even necessarily matter if I finish my projects. It's the pursuit of knowledge that matters to me. b) Some personality types are more suited to more money-oriented careers, such as business or management. While I get along fine with people and could do those jobs, I generally have no interest in them and am just as happy (or happier) working alone, half inside a machine and covered in grease.
2) There are different forms of intelligence. Some people are naturally strong in math and/or sciences. Some people are more language or arts oriented. Still others are good at organizational skills and less so at academic subjects. I'm much more math and science oriented than the others, which drives me to somewhat less money-focused careers.
I had the throttle stick on me with my old Toyota Camry (before computers took over) and I have to say, that was frightening. It was an especially cold day and it took a couple of minutes for it to warm up and move freely again. Luckily, I was driving on a relatively straight road with no stops. Not that I'm in any way afraid of technology, but after that experience, I will gladly give myself to the computer-controlled goodness of this new age.
I'm a mechanical engineering doing Quality Assurance for a medical device manufacturer, so I know a thing or two about testing and validation. While there is a chance of a software problem, the odds of something like that making it through QA and repeated government tests are astronomical.
I think the mature label is more about the potential for gore, sex, and adult themes. I prefer to think of mature games as the games equivalent of R-rated movies (ie. story-heavy games are very much like interactive movies). Many (good) R-rated movies would be less effective at telling their stories if all of the violence, gore, and sex were removed. They're not necessary for a good story, but they can be useful story-telling tools. Without them, it can be more difficult to illustrate the impact of events and emotions. I also think it's silly to arbitrarily mask these things just because they can be distasteful. They're a part of our being whether we like to admit it or not.
I feel I should also point out that there's no reason to label a game as mature if there is no significant gore or sex, as those are about the only things that kids are typically not supposed to see and experience (US-centric view; get over it, mods).
That said, I agree that there is a tendency for most 'mature' games right now to be about nothing BUT gore and sex. I do hope that will change as the medium continues to develop.
Exactly. In the rare instances when I actually let a commercial play through, it's almost always because I'm doing something else (ie. bathroom, getting a drink, having a conversation). Unless I find a commercial entertaining, I just don't watch it. Even if I have to sit through commercials and have nothing else I need to do, I don't pay attention to them. I just space out and think about other things.
Why am I an idiot for not wanting to watch commercials? I don't change my habits or spend money based on TV commercials, so they have no effect on my life other than to waste my time. I prefer to watch my show and move on to more productive/entertaining things. I gain about 15 minutes back for every 'hour' of TV that I watch without commercials. That is hardly trivial for the average TV-watching person.
If you like watching commercials, go have a ball; I'm not going to stop you. Why does that have any bearing on my life or my preferences?
Mostly true, but your 99% estimate is too high. Someone still has to design and manufacture the robots. And research jobs will not go away. There's always more stuff to learn.
It's child's play for us, not for 'normal' people. File sizes don't mean much to non-computer people.
Ubuntu makes computers possible for the bottom-of-the-barrel folks and keeps it flexible and powerful for experienced users. If you want them separated, do it yourself.
In the case of those parents, almost certainly not, but it's irrelevant because they won't do it anyway.
Any half-decent parent will at least make the attempt, even if they don't know exactly what they're doing. Just having the parents involved at all is a big part of it. They don't have to be experts.
According to the article, there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing. I understand where they're coming from on this, but if it's rated M on the box, I expect M-rated content. Don't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings. If it's really that bad, give me the option when I start a new game to skip "objectionable content" and then don't bother me again with it. A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it. It loses emotional impact that way.
First, I generally agree with you. However, I think we're too stuck in this lawsuit culture for them to risk that, no matter how much sense it makes from an artistic/story-telling perspective. I hope games someday are respected enough that they can get away with that, but with the way some parents (don't) raise their kids, that's likely pretty far off.
Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games (at least the installments made by Infinity Ward), and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war. A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered. Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was "potentially disturbing"?
Exactly. My personal favorite is the assassination scene from the beginning of the game, where you're dragged out and shot in first-person view. That has to be one the all-time most powerful moments in entertainment for me, more than any movie or book I've seen/read and I think it's fantastic that we can do that. We watch movies and read books to invoke emotions. Games shouldn't be any different (if they're written to tell a story).
More than that, though, I would guess they're largely the ones that buy the game for their 10 year old without reading the box, then run off to let the game babysit the kid. Otherwise, they would be controlling the experience and helping the kid put it in perspective, rather than trying to get everyone else to be responsible for their kid.
Anybody else remember the original Tom Clancy games? You had to plan your route and actions, then execute your plan, carefully shooting around civilians to get to the bad guys. Those civilians died all the time and nobody batted an eye (that I remember). Sure, this is a bit different in that you're specifically being told to shoot them, but civilians are dying either way. These things are commonplace in movies and books, but because games are interactive (and new-ish), it's a big(ger) deal.
I'm sure every new medium goes through these types of growing pains, but I really can't wait for us to get past this one. I want my interactive stories and I want them to be every bit as mature and thought-provoking as books and movies can be. Stop dumbing down my entertainment for the idiot parents that don't bother to interact with and monitor their kids. And parents, at least read the game box before shelling out $50-60 for your 10-year-old to shoot people.
In this case, the vast majority of people that play this game will not ever be in a situation remotely like what is depicted. Also, if you read the quotes in the posts above, Activision states that the relevant scenes are used in context to set up just how evil the bad guys are. Obviously, I have no first-hand knowledge of the game, but it does sound plausible. Done correctly, there really isn't any way a reasonable person could confuse this with real life. It's just too different.
Also, have you seen hardcore, real-world gore and violence? It has a much larger impact than animated violence. I don't care how much time you've spent playing games and watching movies; it's not the same. If a person can't tell the difference, then they have other issues. Look at the parents and/or medical history, not the games.
I have to agree with you. While some developers have been making statements with games for a while, it's only recently that games have become mainstream enough for the rest of the world to catch on. Many big-name games and developers have taken fire for much smaller things. Modern Warfare is a big name, doing something very close to home for the people that like to make noise about these things. This controversy will (hopefully) help to set a precedent and push us further down the road to the point where games are considered a valid artistic/story-telling medium.
A lot of geeks already accept games as that type of medium, but mainstream society is not there yet. Myself, I don't know how to feel about MW2. It seems that they may have made some big mistakes with it, but I do hope it will force the door open for games to be taken more seriously. The scene in the first Modern Warfare where you get dragged out and executed in first-person view was very powerful and I'd love to see such powerful images used to tell stories in the future (with appropriate ratings).
I have almost zero knowledge of the actual laws, but isn't it generally accepted in the US that you're allowed to intervene with reasonable and/or necessary force to protect yourself, your family, and your house/possessions? Isn't it also true that various parts of the US (and probably other parts of the world) have tried to encourage citizens to intervene another citizen is in danger (ie. a violent crime)?
Similarly, I work for a medical device manufacturer and we are very much required to keep hard copies of EVERYTHING. If we got caught without traceability through our paperwork, we'd be up a certain creek without the requisite tool.
From what I've read, the system wasn't designed as a deterrent to a nuclear war, but rather as a deterrent to an overreaction by the Soviets in the event of an incident with the US. Essentially, it was to keep the Soviets from starting a nuclear war based on bad information or an overreaction such an incident. By ensuring they can strike back after a successful first strike by the US, they allow themselves time to consider the ramifications of their actions and allow cooler heads to make a decision that could lead to the end of the world.
I really hope the system wasn't completely automated in case of some kind of malfunction, but I applaud their foresight. If they anticipated the potential problem of a hot-headed overreaction on their side and put measures in place to help keep that in check, bravo.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you're joking, but his lack of knowledge about TV does not take away from his post. It may or may not actually work, but it's an interesting idea. And the fact that you're more concerned about him calling your TV show by the wrong name suggests that something like that might not be a bad idea. Certainly short clips during childrens' programs couldn't hurt. It'd certainly be more effective than boring kids with more standardized testing to illustrate to us just how slowly they're progressing, all while pounding it into their heads that nobody's better than anyone else at anything.
On topic:
For god's sake, stop trying to legislate this crap and let the kids learn what they're interested in. Let the teachers who know how to teach actually do it instead of forcing them into standardized testing and arbitrary curricula that makes the kids' eyes glaze over. I know a number of elementary teachers (possibly the most critical stage of their development) and they all complain about the same thing: there aren't enough hours in the day to get everything done that they're now required to. Since they don't have enough time, it has to come out of the kids' down time and forces them to work in a manner they're not capable of. It seriously hurts their chances of wanting to learn on their own outside of school (Honestly, how many people that do IT or similar jobs want work extra hours? That's what it can be like for the kids if you push them too hard).
I'd like to rant more, but I'm already at work past my required hours to type this and I don't want to be here anymore...
I don't recall where it originally appeared, but I've seen it a number of different places over the past year or so.
Earliest I could find
People never give credit to their sources anymore
And even if GIMP was an important stepping stone, that says exactly nothing about whether or not it should be included in the standard desktop. People can still install it if they want it. There's no need to clutter things up for 'normal' users.
One of the few times Slashdotters have actually bothered to click the links...
Sins of a Solar Empire is a very good game. Some people complain that it doesn't have a campaign to play through; it's strictly custom games, but that didn't bother me. I sunk days/weeks into it back when I got it and I still go back to play periodically. It doesn't have age advancement exactly, but research is a very important part of the game (to allow colonization of certain types of planets, give new abilities, improve your weapons, etc).
If/when you get sick of the regular game, there are also lots of mods to change things up, including some based on movies/TV series (Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, etc). Definitely worth it, especially as it gets older and the price drops.
Aye, and any scientist/engineer with a degree from the last 20-30 years should be perfectly comfortable working with SI units. There are still hold outs, but they're just a few old fossils and managers. The people that do the actual science and engineering have no problem with SI.
Well sure. If you hit them THAT hard, they pretty much just stop doing everything. I don't recommend it though, what with the jail time and such.
If you were talking about almost any other situation, I'd probably agree with you, except that the one group exists solely to provide content to the other group. If the group that exists to provide content is not providing the content in a manner that is acceptable to the consuming group, then they are unnecessary and by rights should no longer exist, at least not in their current form.
No, I'm not saying we should necessarily get rid of the cable companies, but apply the same rules to all service industries. If the service provided is unnecessary or just plain bad, the company goes out of business. I admit that copyright issues are a problem, but you can't force your consumers to change their habits and buy your service. You need to adapt or at least find a middle ground.
The RIAA is trying to change their customers instead of adapting to the new landscape and look at how well they're doing.
I know you're joking, but I didn't feel like responding to the troll. Two things:
1) A big part of the money thing is personality.
a) Some people (personality types) simply don't care about money. With me, for example, money is how I survive from day to day. More money is nice to have, but what really drives me is working on my projects, solving problems, etc. It doesn't even necessarily matter if I finish my projects. It's the pursuit of knowledge that matters to me.
b) Some personality types are more suited to more money-oriented careers, such as business or management. While I get along fine with people and could do those jobs, I generally have no interest in them and am just as happy (or happier) working alone, half inside a machine and covered in grease.
2) There are different forms of intelligence. Some people are naturally strong in math and/or sciences. Some people are more language or arts oriented. Still others are good at organizational skills and less so at academic subjects. I'm much more math and science oriented than the others, which drives me to somewhat less money-focused careers.
I had the throttle stick on me with my old Toyota Camry (before computers took over) and I have to say, that was frightening. It was an especially cold day and it took a couple of minutes for it to warm up and move freely again. Luckily, I was driving on a relatively straight road with no stops. Not that I'm in any way afraid of technology, but after that experience, I will gladly give myself to the computer-controlled goodness of this new age.
I'm a mechanical engineering doing Quality Assurance for a medical device manufacturer, so I know a thing or two about testing and validation. While there is a chance of a software problem, the odds of something like that making it through QA and repeated government tests are astronomical.
I think the mature label is more about the potential for gore, sex, and adult themes. I prefer to think of mature games as the games equivalent of R-rated movies (ie. story-heavy games are very much like interactive movies). Many (good) R-rated movies would be less effective at telling their stories if all of the violence, gore, and sex were removed. They're not necessary for a good story, but they can be useful story-telling tools. Without them, it can be more difficult to illustrate the impact of events and emotions. I also think it's silly to arbitrarily mask these things just because they can be distasteful. They're a part of our being whether we like to admit it or not.
I feel I should also point out that there's no reason to label a game as mature if there is no significant gore or sex, as those are about the only things that kids are typically not supposed to see and experience (US-centric view; get over it, mods).
That said, I agree that there is a tendency for most 'mature' games right now to be about nothing BUT gore and sex. I do hope that will change as the medium continues to develop.
Exactly. In the rare instances when I actually let a commercial play through, it's almost always because I'm doing something else (ie. bathroom, getting a drink, having a conversation). Unless I find a commercial entertaining, I just don't watch it. Even if I have to sit through commercials and have nothing else I need to do, I don't pay attention to them. I just space out and think about other things.
Why am I an idiot for not wanting to watch commercials? I don't change my habits or spend money based on TV commercials, so they have no effect on my life other than to waste my time. I prefer to watch my show and move on to more productive/entertaining things. I gain about 15 minutes back for every 'hour' of TV that I watch without commercials. That is hardly trivial for the average TV-watching person.
If you like watching commercials, go have a ball; I'm not going to stop you. Why does that have any bearing on my life or my preferences?
Mostly true, but your 99% estimate is too high. Someone still has to design and manufacture the robots. And research jobs will not go away. There's always more stuff to learn.
It's child's play for us, not for 'normal' people. File sizes don't mean much to non-computer people.
Ubuntu makes computers possible for the bottom-of-the-barrel folks and keeps it flexible and powerful for experienced users. If you want them separated, do it yourself.
In the case of those parents, almost certainly not, but it's irrelevant because they won't do it anyway.
Any half-decent parent will at least make the attempt, even if they don't know exactly what they're doing. Just having the parents involved at all is a big part of it. They don't have to be experts.
According to the article, there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing. I understand where they're coming from on this, but if it's rated M on the box, I expect M-rated content. Don't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings. If it's really that bad, give me the option when I start a new game to skip "objectionable content" and then don't bother me again with it. A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it. It loses emotional impact that way.
First, I generally agree with you. However, I think we're too stuck in this lawsuit culture for them to risk that, no matter how much sense it makes from an artistic/story-telling perspective. I hope games someday are respected enough that they can get away with that, but with the way some parents (don't) raise their kids, that's likely pretty far off.
Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games (at least the installments made by Infinity Ward), and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war. A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered. Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was "potentially disturbing"?
Exactly. My personal favorite is the assassination scene from the beginning of the game, where you're dragged out and shot in first-person view. That has to be one the all-time most powerful moments in entertainment for me, more than any movie or book I've seen/read and I think it's fantastic that we can do that. We watch movies and read books to invoke emotions. Games shouldn't be any different (if they're written to tell a story).
That does sound somewhat plausible to me.
More than that, though, I would guess they're largely the ones that buy the game for their 10 year old without reading the box, then run off to let the game babysit the kid. Otherwise, they would be controlling the experience and helping the kid put it in perspective, rather than trying to get everyone else to be responsible for their kid.
A big part of the PTSD and depression issues, from my limited understanding, is the stress of nearly dying and the empathy felt for other people.
You're in no real danger when playing the game and there are no real people, so how is that at all the same?
Anybody else remember the original Tom Clancy games? You had to plan your route and actions, then execute your plan, carefully shooting around civilians to get to the bad guys. Those civilians died all the time and nobody batted an eye (that I remember). Sure, this is a bit different in that you're specifically being told to shoot them, but civilians are dying either way. These things are commonplace in movies and books, but because games are interactive (and new-ish), it's a big(ger) deal.
I'm sure every new medium goes through these types of growing pains, but I really can't wait for us to get past this one. I want my interactive stories and I want them to be every bit as mature and thought-provoking as books and movies can be. Stop dumbing down my entertainment for the idiot parents that don't bother to interact with and monitor their kids. And parents, at least read the game box before shelling out $50-60 for your 10-year-old to shoot people.
In this case, the vast majority of people that play this game will not ever be in a situation remotely like what is depicted. Also, if you read the quotes in the posts above, Activision states that the relevant scenes are used in context to set up just how evil the bad guys are. Obviously, I have no first-hand knowledge of the game, but it does sound plausible. Done correctly, there really isn't any way a reasonable person could confuse this with real life. It's just too different.
Also, have you seen hardcore, real-world gore and violence? It has a much larger impact than animated violence. I don't care how much time you've spent playing games and watching movies; it's not the same. If a person can't tell the difference, then they have other issues. Look at the parents and/or medical history, not the games.
I have to agree with you. While some developers have been making statements with games for a while, it's only recently that games have become mainstream enough for the rest of the world to catch on. Many big-name games and developers have taken fire for much smaller things. Modern Warfare is a big name, doing something very close to home for the people that like to make noise about these things. This controversy will (hopefully) help to set a precedent and push us further down the road to the point where games are considered a valid artistic/story-telling medium.
A lot of geeks already accept games as that type of medium, but mainstream society is not there yet. Myself, I don't know how to feel about MW2. It seems that they may have made some big mistakes with it, but I do hope it will force the door open for games to be taken more seriously. The scene in the first Modern Warfare where you get dragged out and executed in first-person view was very powerful and I'd love to see such powerful images used to tell stories in the future (with appropriate ratings).
I have almost zero knowledge of the actual laws, but isn't it generally accepted in the US that you're allowed to intervene with reasonable and/or necessary force to protect yourself, your family, and your house/possessions? Isn't it also true that various parts of the US (and probably other parts of the world) have tried to encourage citizens to intervene another citizen is in danger (ie. a violent crime)?
Similarly, I work for a medical device manufacturer and we are very much required to keep hard copies of EVERYTHING. If we got caught without traceability through our paperwork, we'd be up a certain creek without the requisite tool.
From what I've read, the system wasn't designed as a deterrent to a nuclear war, but rather as a deterrent to an overreaction by the Soviets in the event of an incident with the US. Essentially, it was to keep the Soviets from starting a nuclear war based on bad information or an overreaction such an incident. By ensuring they can strike back after a successful first strike by the US, they allow themselves time to consider the ramifications of their actions and allow cooler heads to make a decision that could lead to the end of the world.
I really hope the system wasn't completely automated in case of some kind of malfunction, but I applaud their foresight. If they anticipated the potential problem of a hot-headed overreaction on their side and put measures in place to help keep that in check, bravo.