Re:Gamers never know what's good for them
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 1
Your comment about the 2 boss forms made me think of something that I haven't seen in a game yet. How about a game with savepoints that has a "temporary quicksave" - a quicksave that can only be restored during your current gaming session. If you're trying to beat the boss, you can use your quicksave at any point and keep continuing from there. Shut the game off and come back later, and you have to start from the savepoint. Kind of a compromise between save-anywhere and the save point.
One of my biggest gripes is not being able to pause cutscenes. Some games have 5 minute cutscenes that you either A) watch or B) skip. What if I want to watch the cutscene, but the phone is ringing? A good game should allow the player to pause at *any* time.
I agree with you on that point - people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they're not forcing their beliefs on others. However, there are a lot of people in this world today who are forcing their crazy beliefs on a lot of other people, including myself. I find it harder and harder to tolerate people's belief systems when I'm constantly being bombarded by nutcases that want to teach creationism in science class, make laws for religious reasons, and generally foist their supernatural agenda on everybody.
I'm just talking about the US here, but much of the rest of the world is even worse - at least here you can't be stoned in the street (yet) for breaking some sort of holy law.
So, the position that I take is this: believe whatever you want, but if you're going to make an argument don't expect your supernatural ideas to have any weight whatsoever. This is especially true when it comes to making legislation. If you want to make a law or amend the constitution, you'd better be damn well sure that the justification is grounded in reality.
On another note, you're right that the questions you pose can't be answered by science. In fact, they can't be answered at all. I suppose you could just choose an answer that sounds good and go with it, but I really can't fool myself like that. There may be more to the universe than we can observe, but if we can't interact with it then it really doesn't exist as far as we're concerned.
Here's what I do - I live my life as if the answers to those questions are these: why am I here? Because of random chance. what is the meaning of life? To process information (survive in and understand the universe) who am I? Whatever I make myself. what will happen when I die? I will stop processing information. Why do the laws of physics exist? Because the universe exists. The "laws" of physics are just a model that describes the way the universe works from our perspective. The universe is everything that we can percieve and interact with. If something is outside of the universe, then it does not exist. If it could somehow affect us, then it would exist - and it would also be a part of the universe. For our purposes, there is nothing other than the universe, and therefore there is no possible explanation for why it exists. It just is.
Science has traditionally been a system of observing natural phenomenon as a passive observer. I doubt that it would have the same effectiveness when you use it to learn about yourself.
So you're saying that humans, or at least human brains, don't follow the same rules of physics that everything else does? What makes you think that?
What do you mean by saying that the "feelings that I perceive cannot be described in terms of known physics"? How do you know that? If I inject adrenaline into your system, it will affect your feelings - do you think medical science is unable to explain the chemical reactions involved? Do you think that nobody has wached neurons grow and change connections under a microscope? Do you really think that the workings of the lump of cells in your head are beyond understanding?
As for the thought experiment with the brain simulation, which one is "me" depends on what you mean by "me". One is the original me, the other is a simulated copy. Yes, the simulation would experience having its arm cut off. Yes, it would feel pain. Do I deny my own existence? Of course not. I am a collection of cells that have evolved to propagate my DNA as effectively as possible in this particular physical and social environment. Some of those millions of cells are neurons, which make me far more effective by gathering information about my environment and making predictions about future events. There's nothing magical there - I'm just a very complicated physical machine. I really don't think you can make a sensible argument that there's more to the human brain than is observable by science.
Why do you believe that there is more to it? Why do people want to believe that there is more to the universe than that which we perceive? Maybe you can give me some insight, because I truly do not understand.
I don't understand the question - are you asking what happens when you see the color blue? There is a specific type of cone cell that responds to light in the "blue" frequencies. Your brain learns to recognize impulses from these nerves as a group because they tend to correlate in space and time. At various levels of abstraction in the hierarchical organization of your brain, "blue" means different things.
OK, I know that's not what you're looking for. You said "What it's like" - as in the experience of the invisible "you" that's riding around in your brain. The thing is, there is no invisible "you" in there. Your "consciousness" is just a simulation playing out in your brain.
That's what I think at least. Why? Because it's the best explanation I've heard of. Maybe nobody knows the details, but we're getting pretty close. I mean, do you have an alternative explanation? If "consciousness" is not the doing of the brain itself, then what is it? Something outside of the physical universe? There's absolutely no evidence of any sort of thing.
Well, I assume that the copy would either be limited to a videocamera, microphone, and speakers as an interface with the outside world, or else would be inside of a simulation. Most likely you would be able to tell it was a simulation, even if it was a very good one. If you were actually able to make a perfect copy of the entire human, I would suggest affixing a post-it note to the door of the "construction" chamber.
Your use of the word "just" reflects an unwarranted value judgement.
I didn't intend to make a value judgement. I used "just" because seeing humans as machines is a generalization. Seeing them as humans is more specific. You also make a good point that, depending on how you define "machine," it could include everything in the universe. The generalization that I was pointing out, however, is that animals are made up of very complex molecular hardware. These act like traditional mechanical "machines" in many ways - basically riding atop chemistry and physics in order to perform complex functions.
Yep. What if you made a copy of yourself, which one is the real you? What if the copy decides you're the one who's is not the real you and should be destroyed?
The copy would have the same motivations as the original. If you feel like you would have the urge to destroy your copy, then I would not recommend copying yourself.
Having said that, if someone found a way to copy the brain and move your unique consciousness into the copy, now that would be cool!
Copying your brain and copying your consciousness is the same thing. There is really no such thing as "consciousness" - it's just the experience of being a brain.
Navel gazing is great for giving yourself the pleasure of feeling like you've figured out the universe. For the rest of us, reality is far more interesting.
While I'll agree that nobody really knows whether this is possible or not, I disagree that it's scientifically unlikely.
First of all, to really look at the problem you have to leave the supernatural at the door - I don't know what a "soul" is, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the physical universe and everything to do with the wishful thinking of humans. Your body is you. Nothing in the entire universe that I've ever heard of points to any part of "you" being anything other than a part of your physical body. When your body is destroyed, your "consciousness", memories, etc are also destroyed.
As far as I can tell, the basic idea of copying an individual's brain is theoretically sound - if you had the technology to make an atom per atom perfect copy of a human, I see no reason why that human would fail to function. According to physical theory, atoms are interchangable.
To take it further, I doubt that the copy would even have to be perfect at an atomic level. From what we know so far, human memories are stored as connections in a network of neurons. This includes "how to use a fork", "how to speak" and reminiscences about childhood. Where did you think the knowledge about how to control your body in order to get food into your mouth is stored? Babies can't do that - they have to reconnect neurons in order to both understand and respond to the rest of the world. All of that information is in your nervous system.
So, assuming that you can read the important features of the brain's neural network, and assuming that you can reconstruct it (most likely as a simulation) it's probably going to work. The first thing it will probably say is, "What the... Oh shit, I'm the copy!"
As for de-valuing humanity, that's just something we're going to deal with. It shook things up a bit when we realized that we were animals (I don't even think that it has had time to really sink in yet) and now we realize that we and all other animals are just machines. Does that change the value of human life? That is up to us to determine.
Yeah, I guess that's not really appropriate for kids then. Too susceptible to brainwashing.
No, I'm kidding. Fantasy is perfectly fine for kids, as long as they have supportive adults to help them distinguish reality from fancy. They (hopefully) will understand that in reality nobody can fly, and that there are no dragons or wizards or angels or any of that stuff. It's harmless fantasy, until you have some crazy adult that actually believes in it.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm happy with Netflix. I think turnaround time depends on where you live, but my returns get there the next day and my new movie usually shows up the day after that.
I've heard people complain about their interface, but I really can't understand that. I guess maybe it's complicated if you don't use computers (or GUIs?) much, but it's really quite simple and useful. It works fine in Firefox, even when doing things (browsing, adding/removing movies, etc) from multiple tabs.
I've gotten a few broken and scratched DVDs, but not enough to make it annoying.
As for the "merger", I would be leery of having some sort of Wal-Mart/Netflix combo account - you might be better off just opening a new Netflix account from scratch. Who knows, though - you would need to look into the details of the planned transition.
More and more gamers don't WANT innovative and creative games anymore. All they care about is having super duper photo-like graphics and a machine that does everything from play movies to cook chicken.
If good games become a niche market, then that's where my money will go. Let's hope Nintendo and others resist following the moronic pop culture trend that seems to be growing in the industry.
They're referring to Microsoft's tactics. Basically they outcompete everybody else by operating at a loss. Once they monopolize the market, then the profits start rolling in.
That's how MS competes, and that's why I don't buy their shit. I appreciate the fact that they've spurred the game industry forward by increasing competition, but I'm afraid it will end in a MS dominated wasteland.
As an avid lifelong gamer, I just hope this turns out to be the one industry where they fail to take over.
Interesting point, especially when combined with the fact that Nintendo is being pretty mysterious about the controller. There's been some speculation about reconfigurable touchscreen controllers, which would allow the same controller to have different numbers of buttons. I kind of doubt that one, though, since the player spends a lot more time feeling the buttons than looking at them.
Interesting. How would you make a reconfigurable controller that still feels natural to use?
My guess is that they'll all talk to each other. If the Revolution and DS communicate wirelessly, it would be strange if the GBA2 didn't speak the same language.
Who knows what the hell the plan is, though. Should be an interesting E3!
I say let each stand on its own merit falling or standing on scientific principles not legislation.
OK, whatever you say. First order of business: Intelligent Design not a scientific theory (for various reasons, including not being testable) and therefore, on its own merit, fails according to scientific principles. It should not even be considered for discussion in science class, except to use as contrast when explaining what science is and how it works.
Oh, and the term "fundie" is generally used to refer to "fundamentalists," or those who believe things without any sort of evidence from the physical universe. I highly doubt that these people are trying to advance our understanding of the world around us.
What you just said is entirely useless. How about restating by actually presenting some scientific evidence that the bible is true? I'll go ahead and make a guess that either A) you can't, B) the "evidence" isn't valid, or C) the evidence is valid but doesn't actually prove anything about the bible.
Please prove me wrong - I'm sure it would be an amazing revelation for me.
You're obviously a product of public education "Kansas style."
You point out that Scientists are usually wrong as if it's somehow surprising. The whole point of science is to embrace the fact that we're probably wrong in an attempt to get a more accurate explanation. It's a continuing process that will never end.
These "Intelligent Design" folks seem to think that there's some absolute truth out there that we're going to find. Better yet, they think that they've already found it!
The most frustrating thing about this whole scenario is that these people don't understand the basic concept of analyzing things scientifically. Anybody who says that evolution is "only a theory" is not just missing the point but going in the opposite direction. NOTHING is more powerful than a theory. There is NO more accurate way to explain something. That said, some theories are better than others. Take the "theory" (actually just a hypothesis) that humans were created by an intelligent being. This is not a good theory. Why? Because it has no evidence (no, a book written by humans is not evidence) and is not testable.
These people can believe whatever the hell they want, but they can't start calling it an alternative theory just to force it into science education. Try getting an ID paper published in a reputable science journal. You won't be able to, because it's PHILOSOPHY, not SCIENCE.
Sorry to rant about this, but it really pisses me off that so many people in my country believe in ghosts and ESP. No wonder we have so many problems. And yes, I'm open to new ideas - ideas that have some justification. Do you really think that science isn't open to new ideas? New ideas are what science is ABOUT. The trick is filtering the good ideas from the bad ideas. Compare scientiests to the ID pseudo scientists. Who is more open to reevaluating their view of the world?
Absolutely. Everybody appreciates a good site with high res pictures of the products, reviews, suggested accessories, etc. It's a great resource for doing research.
When it comes time to actually make the purchase, though, it mainly comes down to price. What's the lowest price (including shipping) from a seller that looks at all reputable? They may not have much information about the product, but as long as they have the model number you can research it somewhere else.
What it comes down to is that low prices benefit the seller more than providing lots of information. High res pictures cost them bandwidth but don't necessarily get them sales. It would make the most sense to find out the details from the manufacturer, but unfortunately most manufacturers provide surprisingly little information about their products. Good luck getting a 1280x1024 image of the receiver you want to buy from the Sony web site. At least product manuals seem to be readily available, but the manuals themselves are often lacking. I've actually had to resort to going to a physical store just to check the thing out!
It also works in reverse. How do you port a game designed for a new display system back to a 2D projection? It depends on the game, but the answer is probably "you don't."
It may be a gamble, but if the technology is truly revolutionary and (most importantly) fun, then people will buy it and third party developers will jump all over it.
I realize that this whole discussion is based on speculation and rumor, but it's interesting to contemplate.
Slashdot Mirror
One of my biggest gripes is not being able to pause cutscenes. Some games have 5 minute cutscenes that you either A) watch or B) skip. What if I want to watch the cutscene, but the phone is ringing? A good game should allow the player to pause at *any* time.
I'm just talking about the US here, but much of the rest of the world is even worse - at least here you can't be stoned in the street (yet) for breaking some sort of holy law.
So, the position that I take is this: believe whatever you want, but if you're going to make an argument don't expect your supernatural ideas to have any weight whatsoever. This is especially true when it comes to making legislation. If you want to make a law or amend the constitution, you'd better be damn well sure that the justification is grounded in reality.
On another note, you're right that the questions you pose can't be answered by science. In fact, they can't be answered at all. I suppose you could just choose an answer that sounds good and go with it, but I really can't fool myself like that. There may be more to the universe than we can observe, but if we can't interact with it then it really doesn't exist as far as we're concerned.
Here's what I do - I live my life as if the answers to those questions are these:
why am I here?
Because of random chance.
what is the meaning of life?
To process information (survive in and understand the universe)
who am I?
Whatever I make myself.
what will happen when I die?
I will stop processing information.
Why do the laws of physics exist?
Because the universe exists. The "laws" of physics are just a model that describes the way the universe works from our perspective. The universe is everything that we can percieve and interact with. If something is outside of the universe, then it does not exist. If it could somehow affect us, then it would exist - and it would also be a part of the universe. For our purposes, there is nothing other than the universe, and therefore there is no possible explanation for why it exists. It just is.
What do you mean by saying that the "feelings that I perceive cannot be described in terms of known physics"? How do you know that? If I inject adrenaline into your system, it will affect your feelings - do you think medical science is unable to explain the chemical reactions involved? Do you think that nobody has wached neurons grow and change connections under a microscope? Do you really think that the workings of the lump of cells in your head are beyond understanding?
As for the thought experiment with the brain simulation, which one is "me" depends on what you mean by "me". One is the original me, the other is a simulated copy. Yes, the simulation would experience having its arm cut off. Yes, it would feel pain. Do I deny my own existence? Of course not. I am a collection of cells that have evolved to propagate my DNA as effectively as possible in this particular physical and social environment. Some of those millions of cells are neurons, which make me far more effective by gathering information about my environment and making predictions about future events. There's nothing magical there - I'm just a very complicated physical machine. I really don't think you can make a sensible argument that there's more to the human brain than is observable by science.
Why do you believe that there is more to it? Why do people want to believe that there is more to the universe than that which we perceive? Maybe you can give me some insight, because I truly do not understand.
OK, I know that's not what you're looking for. You said "What it's like" - as in the experience of the invisible "you" that's riding around in your brain. The thing is, there is no invisible "you" in there. Your "consciousness" is just a simulation playing out in your brain.
That's what I think at least. Why? Because it's the best explanation I've heard of. Maybe nobody knows the details, but we're getting pretty close. I mean, do you have an alternative explanation? If "consciousness" is not the doing of the brain itself, then what is it? Something outside of the physical universe? There's absolutely no evidence of any sort of thing.
First of all, to really look at the problem you have to leave the supernatural at the door - I don't know what a "soul" is, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the physical universe and everything to do with the wishful thinking of humans. Your body is you. Nothing in the entire universe that I've ever heard of points to any part of "you" being anything other than a part of your physical body. When your body is destroyed, your "consciousness", memories, etc are also destroyed.
As far as I can tell, the basic idea of copying an individual's brain is theoretically sound - if you had the technology to make an atom per atom perfect copy of a human, I see no reason why that human would fail to function. According to physical theory, atoms are interchangable.
To take it further, I doubt that the copy would even have to be perfect at an atomic level. From what we know so far, human memories are stored as connections in a network of neurons. This includes "how to use a fork", "how to speak" and reminiscences about childhood. Where did you think the knowledge about how to control your body in order to get food into your mouth is stored? Babies can't do that - they have to reconnect neurons in order to both understand and respond to the rest of the world. All of that information is in your nervous system.
So, assuming that you can read the important features of the brain's neural network, and assuming that you can reconstruct it (most likely as a simulation) it's probably going to work. The first thing it will probably say is, "What the... Oh shit, I'm the copy!"
As for de-valuing humanity, that's just something we're going to deal with. It shook things up a bit when we realized that we were animals (I don't even think that it has had time to really sink in yet) and now we realize that we and all other animals are just machines. Does that change the value of human life? That is up to us to determine.
No, I'm kidding. Fantasy is perfectly fine for kids, as long as they have supportive adults to help them distinguish reality from fancy. They (hopefully) will understand that in reality nobody can fly, and that there are no dragons or wizards or angels or any of that stuff. It's harmless fantasy, until you have some crazy adult that actually believes in it.
I've heard people complain about their interface, but I really can't understand that. I guess maybe it's complicated if you don't use computers (or GUIs?) much, but it's really quite simple and useful. It works fine in Firefox, even when doing things (browsing, adding/removing movies, etc) from multiple tabs.
I've gotten a few broken and scratched DVDs, but not enough to make it annoying.
As for the "merger", I would be leery of having some sort of Wal-Mart/Netflix combo account - you might be better off just opening a new Netflix account from scratch. Who knows, though - you would need to look into the details of the planned transition.
Not a very realistic strategy. I've got a more effective one, though - I never buy anything from Wal-Mart.
That's how MS competes, and that's why I don't buy their shit. I appreciate the fact that they've spurred the game industry forward by increasing competition, but I'm afraid it will end in a MS dominated wasteland.
As an avid lifelong gamer, I just hope this turns out to be the one industry where they fail to take over.
Interesting. How would you make a reconfigurable controller that still feels natural to use?
The Zelda game is for GC, not next-gen.
inventory
Who knows what the hell the plan is, though. Should be an interesting E3!
Oh, and the term "fundie" is generally used to refer to "fundamentalists," or those who believe things without any sort of evidence from the physical universe. I highly doubt that these people are trying to advance our understanding of the world around us.
Please prove me wrong - I'm sure it would be an amazing revelation for me.
You point out that Scientists are usually wrong as if it's somehow surprising. The whole point of science is to embrace the fact that we're probably wrong in an attempt to get a more accurate explanation. It's a continuing process that will never end.
These "Intelligent Design" folks seem to think that there's some absolute truth out there that we're going to find. Better yet, they think that they've already found it!
The most frustrating thing about this whole scenario is that these people don't understand the basic concept of analyzing things scientifically. Anybody who says that evolution is "only a theory" is not just missing the point but going in the opposite direction. NOTHING is more powerful than a theory. There is NO more accurate way to explain something. That said, some theories are better than others. Take the "theory" (actually just a hypothesis) that humans were created by an intelligent being. This is not a good theory. Why? Because it has no evidence (no, a book written by humans is not evidence) and is not testable.
These people can believe whatever the hell they want, but they can't start calling it an alternative theory just to force it into science education. Try getting an ID paper published in a reputable science journal. You won't be able to, because it's PHILOSOPHY, not SCIENCE.
Sorry to rant about this, but it really pisses me off that so many people in my country believe in ghosts and ESP. No wonder we have so many problems. And yes, I'm open to new ideas - ideas that have some justification. Do you really think that science isn't open to new ideas? New ideas are what science is ABOUT. The trick is filtering the good ideas from the bad ideas. Compare scientiests to the ID pseudo scientists. Who is more open to reevaluating their view of the world?
When it comes time to actually make the purchase, though, it mainly comes down to price. What's the lowest price (including shipping) from a seller that looks at all reputable? They may not have much information about the product, but as long as they have the model number you can research it somewhere else.
What it comes down to is that low prices benefit the seller more than providing lots of information. High res pictures cost them bandwidth but don't necessarily get them sales. It would make the most sense to find out the details from the manufacturer, but unfortunately most manufacturers provide surprisingly little information about their products. Good luck getting a 1280x1024 image of the receiver you want to buy from the Sony web site. At least product manuals seem to be readily available, but the manuals themselves are often lacking. I've actually had to resort to going to a physical store just to check the thing out!
It may be a gamble, but if the technology is truly revolutionary and (most importantly) fun, then people will buy it and third party developers will jump all over it.
I realize that this whole discussion is based on speculation and rumor, but it's interesting to contemplate.