the problem with your complaint is that my problem with the GP was his logic. "It already started so it makes no sense to stop it" is what I was commenting on. "the basement is flooding" was not an analogy for global warming. It was an analogy for a problem that you can see when it's at an early stage and will inevitably get worse if you don't do something about it. If I were making an analogy for global warming I would have used a car.
and if we DID do something evil, we'd apologize profusely for it and offer you some maple candy and poutine in compensation to show just how very, VERY sorry we were.
my complaint was more about his logic of "we shouldn't stop it because it already started" not making any sense rather than whether or not climate change is occurring or not.
From what I understand the concern is that while some areas will benefit, other areas will be too hot to grow any crops/the crops native to those areas leading to huge tracts of land in 3rd world countries in africa having even less food than they used to.
Well, except in this case the "beach" is the entire planet so when tide comes in you're going to drown either way.
And I was responding to the claim
don't think it's worth changing our entire civilization to try and stop something that is, well, already happening anyway.
being silly because saying we shouldn't stop something dangerous from happening because it is happening makes no sense. That is, in fact, when you should be the most fervently trying to stop it.
"well the basement is flooding but it's already STARTED flooding so why should we bother going down and turning off the tap? My pants would get wet and it's already a bit wet down there anyways. What do you mean 'structural damage if it gets worse?' That doesn't make any sense to me."
I'm somewhat curious about why we got mentioned myself. I mean, I know us Canadians love any acknowledgment that the rest of the world remembers we exist above the states but really? Is it because we're stereotypically cold?
And why the hell can't we preserve everything? We could if we cared too.
The only way to "preserve everything" would be to put the entire planet in some sort of temporal stasis. There are logistic and space based constraints.
Actually most NES games had, at best, 2 difficulty settings that effectively translated to "hard" and "punishingy hard". If I had known about the Konami Code and that I could have set my life count in Contra you be your ass I would have. But a lot of games you just flat out can't.
My point is that if someone emulates one of these games, unless they're doing it purely for the challenge (which is a totally fine way to do it mind you) they use save and load states to circumvent the "you only have 3 lives" thing. Almost every friend I have does it at least from time to time because they've never seen the end of some game and trying to get to it legitimately was a pain.
I guess what I'm saying is that there's a reason that modern games don't tend to use those elements.
That's one small museum dedicated entirely to bad art that relatively few people know about. It in no way reflects the cultural attitude towards art preservation.
But we literally cannot save everything. We'd run out of space to display, document, etc. To properly document the holocaust we would need to preserve almost the entirety of Europe. It's just not practical. Imagine a museum with every drawing/painting/photograph/piece of writing EVER. It wouldn't fit on the planet. We need to decide what is worth storing.
When did I say I determined what was good? Do you see the Vetrex 64 around? No? Then it probably died out quickly for a reason. Nintendo survived, Sony survived, in some capacity Sega and Atari survived. We can't save everything therefore we have to judge what is the most culturally relevant. I don't decide what goes in museums either, but someone does.
Yes. You can create more difficulty if you wish. You can impose a cap on the number of times you die before you restart from the beginning, but the game doing it is just needless frustration. You can not save the game ever. This doesn't mean that games that forced those restrictions weren't adding needless frustration for those who didn't have time to play all the way through or weren't as good.
No, I'm saying early things related to great works are worth preserving. That's why the negatives by that guy from before he knew what he was doing are valuable. But game systems that were never very good and never evolved into anything good and negatives by photographers who never went on to accomplish anything are not.
And getting to the end without dying ever proves that exact same thing without a life cap frustrating the 5 year old with poor manual dexterity who just wants to see what the 4th level of Contra looks like.
Like I said. You could artificially impose those restraints on the game yourself. Then your bragging right becomes "I beat GAME X with only 2 deaths" instead of "I beat GAME X". There's no reason I should have to start over at the beginning of the game every third death. Especially in games like Battle Toads and Contra.
No. Putting early versions of pong controllers and the original sketches for the pacman levels is the same as that. We don't put negatives that other photographers who weren't any good in museums.
Yes, there were crappy games then and there are crappy games now. But my point is, the games have gotten better, you just like them less because you grew up and life isn't magical anymore. Give someone who has never played either Bioshock and Megaman and I'll bet you they prefer Bioshock.
Limited "lives" were an artifact of arcades where they wanted you to put more money in. On a console they were just pointless frustration.
If you really want the game to be harder due to only having 3 lives you can just reset the game after 3 deaths.
Lack of saves were a hardware constraint. There is no reason I should not now be able to save my game whenever I want and I wouldn't play a modern game where I couldn't. Again, if you don't want to use the feature you can just not use it but it's lack of existence is a definite point against.
But we don't put terrible paintings in museums (modern art notwithstanding) to "gives context to the goodness". We forget it and remember the stuff worth remembering.
Slashdot Mirror
the problem with your complaint is that my problem with the GP was his logic. "It already started so it makes no sense to stop it" is what I was commenting on. "the basement is flooding" was not an analogy for global warming. It was an analogy for a problem that you can see when it's at an early stage and will inevitably get worse if you don't do something about it. If I were making an analogy for global warming I would have used a car.
and if we DID do something evil, we'd apologize profusely for it and offer you some maple candy and poutine in compensation to show just how very, VERY sorry we were.
my complaint was more about his logic of "we shouldn't stop it because it already started" not making any sense rather than whether or not climate change is occurring or not.
From what I understand the concern is that while some areas will benefit, other areas will be too hot to grow any crops/the crops native to those areas leading to huge tracts of land in 3rd world countries in africa having even less food than they used to.
Exactly! then they're just "vast areas" which, quite frankly, just sounds dirty.
Do you really want FRANCE on your research team!? I heard they hate freedom AND don't even speak american!
And I was responding to the claim
don't think it's worth changing our entire civilization to try and stop something that is, well, already happening anyway.
being silly because saying we shouldn't stop something dangerous from happening because it is happening makes no sense. That is, in fact, when you should be the most fervently trying to stop it.
"well the basement is flooding but it's already STARTED flooding so why should we bother going down and turning off the tap? My pants would get wet and it's already a bit wet down there anyways. What do you mean 'structural damage if it gets worse?' That doesn't make any sense to me."
I'm somewhat curious about why we got mentioned myself. I mean, I know us Canadians love any acknowledgment that the rest of the world remembers we exist above the states but really? Is it because we're stereotypically cold?
And why the hell can't we preserve everything? We could if we cared too.
The only way to "preserve everything" would be to put the entire planet in some sort of temporal stasis. There are logistic and space based constraints.
Actually most NES games had, at best, 2 difficulty settings that effectively translated to "hard" and "punishingy hard". If I had known about the Konami Code and that I could have set my life count in Contra you be your ass I would have. But a lot of games you just flat out can't.
My point is that if someone emulates one of these games, unless they're doing it purely for the challenge (which is a totally fine way to do it mind you) they use save and load states to circumvent the "you only have 3 lives" thing. Almost every friend I have does it at least from time to time because they've never seen the end of some game and trying to get to it legitimately was a pain.
I guess what I'm saying is that there's a reason that modern games don't tend to use those elements.
That's one small museum dedicated entirely to bad art that relatively few people know about. It in no way reflects the cultural attitude towards art preservation.
But we literally cannot save everything. We'd run out of space to display, document, etc. To properly document the holocaust we would need to preserve almost the entirety of Europe. It's just not practical. Imagine a museum with every drawing/painting/photograph/piece of writing EVER. It wouldn't fit on the planet. We need to decide what is worth storing.
I didn't know the Konami code when I was 5. And battletoads doesn't have it.
When did I say I determined what was good? Do you see the Vetrex 64 around? No? Then it probably died out quickly for a reason. Nintendo survived, Sony survived, in some capacity Sega and Atari survived. We can't save everything therefore we have to judge what is the most culturally relevant. I don't decide what goes in museums either, but someone does.
Yes. You can create more difficulty if you wish. You can impose a cap on the number of times you die before you restart from the beginning, but the game doing it is just needless frustration. You can not save the game ever. This doesn't mean that games that forced those restrictions weren't adding needless frustration for those who didn't have time to play all the way through or weren't as good.
No, I'm saying early things related to great works are worth preserving. That's why the negatives by that guy from before he knew what he was doing are valuable. But game systems that were never very good and never evolved into anything good and negatives by photographers who never went on to accomplish anything are not.
And getting to the end without dying ever proves that exact same thing without a life cap frustrating the 5 year old with poor manual dexterity who just wants to see what the 4th level of Contra looks like.
Like I said. You could artificially impose those restraints on the game yourself. Then your bragging right becomes "I beat GAME X with only 2 deaths" instead of "I beat GAME X". There's no reason I should have to start over at the beginning of the game every third death. Especially in games like Battle Toads and Contra.
No. Putting early versions of pong controllers and the original sketches for the pacman levels is the same as that. We don't put negatives that other photographers who weren't any good in museums.
Yes, there were crappy games then and there are crappy games now. But my point is, the games have gotten better, you just like them less because you grew up and life isn't magical anymore. Give someone who has never played either Bioshock and Megaman and I'll bet you they prefer Bioshock.
I had a NES. I'm only in my 20s.
Limited "lives" were an artifact of arcades where they wanted you to put more money in. On a console they were just pointless frustration.
If you really want the game to be harder due to only having 3 lives you can just reset the game after 3 deaths.
Lack of saves were a hardware constraint. There is no reason I should not now be able to save my game whenever I want and I wouldn't play a modern game where I couldn't. Again, if you don't want to use the feature you can just not use it but it's lack of existence is a definite point against.
But we don't put terrible paintings in museums (modern art notwithstanding) to "gives context to the goodness". We forget it and remember the stuff worth remembering.