Years later I discovered that my parents' philosophy was that if a kid is clever enough to outsmart the protection mechanism, they're probably old enough to have access to the content. That's hilarious. My parents had the same philosophy too, but they weren't too keen on the video games. My mother once tried to limit my play time by taking the power cord from the 8-bit Nintendo with her to work. Her theory was "You need to do more than play video games if you want to succeed in society." I was 9 at the time.
She came home one day to me playing Punch Out with no problems. "How did you get that to work? I have the power cord in my purse!"
"The answering machine runs on the same voltage." I replied.
She laughed and said I would be just fine. She quit trying to control that specific behavior and instead channeled it into positives. Thats when I learned to program.
Imagine every University in the world, every high school even, running it's own Wikipedia. That kind of network would be impossible to corrupt. Unfortunately that's when the marketing techniques step in to pander and cater to certain crowds - thereby using the theory of mob rule to enforce credibility on subjects that shouldn't be decided by such factors. A large chunk of my job is in marketing and I am willing to say from first hand experience I don't want it involved with establishing reference credibility in any way, shape, or form.
You can easily obtain a working AK also, many for under 500 dollars. Plenty of people use them in 3 gun competitions because the 223 ammo for their ARs is getting too expensive.
Now, getting one thats fully automatic is a different story.
Where are the Scrabble players, the Candy Land players or even the Chess or Checkers players at? That would be a game, not games. That is the same as asking where are the Baldur's Gate players, the Super Mario players or even the Command and Conquer or the Pac-Man players at?
How many studies have shown that people tend to completely ignore web-based ads, not even registering their existence a lot of the time? And are there less web-based ads? No, because the reality is that they probably do work overall, and certainly the people putting ads on websites aren't going to take the risk of stopping. Everyone playing the game knows the score. Web ads don't work if you don't do your due diligence. Certain demographics respond differently to web ads. Techies hate shotgun ads, the less enlightened really love them. B2B ads perform much better than B2C ads, if only because business people are actively searching for an answer to a problem while organic results give consumers the references they need.
I've never heard anyone complain about an ad they liked. Just ads that weren't relevant.
In all actuality, you might see certain companies embrace this.
I can honestly say that the "Will It Blend" people would be totally open to sponsoring a game development initiative where one of the bosses was a big blender monster that constantly screamed "WILL YOU BLEND!"
The trick is to advertise in a self depreciating manner. If you know that players might respond negatively to your ads being all over a game, you could easily attempt to have an element of the game be created for purposeful abuse that had your branding all over it. While the traditional marketers would most certainly balk at such a venture - it may not be such a bad idea. If the end results are funny, you can really garner a large amount of benevolent feelings towards your product. If done very well you may actually create a sense of "well, at least these guys get it."
This isn't a direct example, but Red vs. Blue really does criticize the ridiculousness of capture the flag - and people love it.
Fine Art. Yes, I know he said 'High Art', but there was no such definition so I used the next best thing I could find.
Looking at the two definitions, Ebert's statements seem a little soft. The first bullet point for 'Art' seems to support video games of at least qualifying for consideration inside its ranks. Using the first two bullet points for 'Fine Art', the incredibly controversial Super Columbine Massacre RPG can easily be debated as a form of Fine Art. Have fun arguing over that one.
Bullet points three and four under 'Fine Art' seem to support Ebert's assertion. 'Fine Art' is not functional, and to be judged by the theories of art. It also asserts a hard definition for the forms worthy of this definition (painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, music). My initial issue with this is the 'theories' part. Theories are built upon to create new theories using new information gathered from the application of the older theories. Is there a cut off point for the validity of a theory in this case? What are the criteria used to establish applicable 'thoery' in this sense? What was the criteria used to establish writing as able to qualify as 'Fine Art' when at one point all that existed was verbal story telling? Ebert compares games with Shakespeare, but according to this definition - that doesn't quite qualify as 'Fine Art' either. Once again, I realize he said 'High Art', but 'Fine Art' and "High Art' are used interchangeably by many.
Bullet point 5 of 'Fine Art' seems to remove everything Ebert has ever reviewed from the definition of 'Fine Art', making him wholly unqualified to define what is and isn't able to attain the categorization. I don't know, maybe Ebert has reviewed a movie that wasn't created for commercial purposes - but I highly doubt it. Even if he has, his references to Shakespeare's writings and Andy Warhol's paintings fail as these were commercial efforts.
Take it one step further, Andy Warhol's paintings were created in his famous studio the Factory. Andy used capitalisms methodologies as a method of delivering his vision. The soup cans weren't art - the ability to create them so efficiently and have people THINK THEY WERE ART was the art. It was a pretty impressive social statement that established him as a great artist, and thereby allowing the definition of 'Fine Art' to be applied to his works. This completely undermines every single one of Ebert's assertions by allowing work to be defined as 'Fine Art' after the fact if the creator can somehow establish their greatness AT ANY POINT IN THEIR WORKS EXISTENCE.
Hell, Van Gogh, and his work, was considered nothing until he DIED - thereby eliminating access to anything that wasn't already created. By this logic, and it has been applied by academics and the plebeians alike, almost ANYTHING can become 'Fine Art'.
Fundamentally, I see this mans statement as a great example of how large the generation gap really is between the Boomers and X on. The Boomers fight to keep their definitions relevant and superior instead of recognizing the disruptive cultural technologies created of the past two decades and embracing the possibilities they enable.
I thought it was only illegal to distribute or sell it. I thought I was free to develop anything I want. In any case its moot, because you can show a list of legitimate uses for modded equipment.
Violence isn't cool because the marketing machine says its cool. Violence is cool because people LIKE it.
Before big marketing the most well known media was violent. Beowulf comes to mind. People LOVE violence. Don't confuse the fact that your brother is slipping and his friends are there too as some sort of societal problem. What are the chances your brother is an idiot and that his friends are idiots too? What are the chances they are acting like normal 22 year olds who really have no idea what the world is like.
Try this, instead of enabling his punk ass, kick him out. Instead of letting guys sleep on your porch, call the cops.
The problem isn't that these kids are bombarded with violence, its that they have never felt the full consequences of any action. They were nannied in school, by society, and probably by their parents. They have no clue what the harsh repercussions of the shit actions they take are because many societies have formed an enabling environment where no one is accountable.
Don't try to tell me what I can do because you know someone who can't get their shit together.
You know, I really hate this perspective. It assumes that everyone agrees on what is offensive.
What about what I find offensive? The platitude ridden crap we get now is more offensive to me than some "snuff" game with no artistic merit. I love how these "small minded idiots" are branded as such based on no other criteria than creating something you disagree with. You may think you are voicing the opinion of reason, but its statements like yours that are more censorship favoring than anything else I tend to hear.
How about personal accountability for the media you consume? How about making choices for yourself instead of assuming your opinion is the opinion? How about understanding that majority opinion has been shown to be full of shit more than once?
Do you want to tell me when I have to go to bed too?
Seriously, do you think your opinion of tasteful/necessary/allowable levels of violence/sex/drug references/(taboo material) in games/movies/books/TV is the litmus test that we should go by?
I'll give you a reason. I'm a reality grounded, well educated young man who loves the Walter Mitty aspects these games allow me. I don't want to really experience clearing a room full of terrorists like in Rainbow Six:Vegas - but I sure as hell have fun playing with the scenario. I also don't want to fight Zombies or Vampires in real life, but these damn games sure are cool.
To subjugate the populace to watered down media materials because you think it could help prevent violent outbreaks is ridiculous. The only thing it will do is cut down on the number of times that a specific media type can be labeled the trigger for such an event.
In your rush to defend scum you are overlooking the well established standard of treating burglary as a violent crime.
Please tell me where I was defending scum? While the tone of my post may have been somewhat authoritarian, I in no way defended the actions of the hypothetical criminals. If you feel ok with shooting someone who broke into your house to steal, then fine by me. The courts will sort you out if you were an idiot. I CHOOSE not to kill over possessions. This isn't defending criminals one bit. I choose not to kill over possessions because I personally feel it would have an irreversible negative impact on my soul, and not in the biblical "going to hell" sense.
There can be a long established standard for banging your wife on Thursdays for all I care, I'm not following it because its not what I choose to do. Don't try to turn that perspective into some "soft on criminals" stance. Its not. I just don't hold the stereo typical American desire for a fully justified Ramboesque killing spree. There is also a huge difference between shooting someone who is actively committing a crime in your house and shooting someone who is actively trying to get the fuck out of your house. I'm all for killing for defense. I'm not for killing based on trespass and theft. Now, the situation does get murky if you find someone actively in your house. For me, if the asshat hasn't hurt anyone AND he runs, he gets to live.
Here's the problem with this scenario for gun owners (like me.)
If I feel the criminal is a threat to my family, I can fire away as long as they remain a threat. If I happen to wake in the middle of a home robbery and the criminals attempt to immediately flee without presenting a threat to my family, but they don't drop the loot - firing is a bad option. You have to accept you lost your shit.
The way I look at it is this. if it doesn't breathe - I don't kill over it.
Just picking nits here, as I agree with what you're essentially saying, but the following statement bugs me:
Given that there is never any absolutes and no action has any inherent meaning
You do realize for this statement to be true, it in of itself would be an absolute.
I think a more realistic approach would be to state that while there most certainly absolutes none of are qualified to define them or apply hierarchical value to them, forcing us to use relative perspectives to quantify these actions.
You fail to see the base element of big media companies that propagate political information - Revenue. Namely revenue through advertising. This is done in two ways:
By attracting viewers through perspective slant. Right wing news outlet gathers a right wing base by telling stories with a right wing slant. Left wing news outlet gathers a left wing base by telling stories with a left wing slant. The actual content of the information is a moot point. People will watch and consume media that reflects their perspective. You attract advertisers by saying you have a base of size X. You maintain this base by feeding them information the way they like it, not because its what they like.
By attracting viewers through targeted content. Right wing media outlet only has shows that cover right wing concerns. Left wing media outlet only has shows that cover left wing concerns. The number of information consumers dictates advertising revenue. The actual content is very relevant here - even if the presentation slant is in the opposite direction.
The disconnect occurs when the Right wing media outlet needs to report on who the Left wing front runners are. The problem is that the Right wing media outlet has almost no sway over the Left wing viewership - so they have to look at who the Left wing media outlet is reporting on for direction. This is true in vice versa. Literally, Fox is determining who is the left front runner by watching CNN, and CNN is determining who is the right front runner by watching Fox. If either news agency went out and reported that there was a front runner in the opposing viewership's party that wasn't mirrored in the corresponding news service - they would lose credibility and ultimately ad revenue.
Its not commercial interest in the sense of the large governing media body, its commercial interest in perspective of revenue stream. The candidates are dealt with through lobbying, not trying to influence the voter body to a specific canidate who suports their corporate mandates.
Did it occur to you that DVR technology is not anywhere close to new and that people already get the idea. Hell, the concept of fast forwarding was pretty much introduced with the VCR.
And on a relative point, please notice that you STILL can't find a Wii anywhere - the shit is selling as fast as they can make them.
To be honest, I don't know why Surface is only pointed at businesses right now. I know I would be more than willing to spend 10K to get the largest model available - and not for that "Look at the cool shit I have" reason. I WANT THIS FOR MY OWN USE! I have so many things I am willing to code for it myself its not even funny.
Hell, there were people paying more than that for the first gen HD setups if I remember correctly.
Perhaps, and this is a long stretch, Microsoft learned a lesson with the original XBOX in how difficult it is to actually introduce a consumer hardware product to the masses. Look at the 360 vs. PS3 if you have doubts, the second gen release made ma a convert.
Maybe they see the Apple iPod success and hedge their bets as far as the consumer market is concerned. It is better to release a superior product later than it is to release an innovative product earlier. Hardware isn't software. If you screw up with software, you can release an upgrade. If you screw up with hardware you fail.
Man, I can think of a ton of things that I could write myself using XNA.
Specialized drink glass code that you could play drinking games with (russian roulette comes to mind)
Almost every board game ever made
Air Hockey
A MTG interface
If there was a way to start manufacturing items, or self encoding, with the domino encoding on them, writing an app that queries wikipedia when the item is placed on it to give you a neato little "Identify" effect
Take the same idea as above, but it allows you to purchase said item directly from the vendor by tapping you credit card on the table. Cool if you have people visiting or if you are at someone elses house.
Another layer of immersion with certain types of digital media (travel shows can display interactive maps without using up viewing real estate, ect...)
Multi user story telling - Essentially choose your own adventure where everyone was a character and chose from a list of actions to dynamically create a story or show.
Virtual turntables
A real time map of my house with live feeds from webcams actually playing in the roomspace
A tool that allows you to generate custom tabletop game boards and rule structures on the fly. Lego men now have another use!
A visual warehouse management tool
Virtual home decorating swatches (although the screen and projection tech may need to catch up on that one)
I could go on and on. None of this is really mindblowing, but there could be a very decent cottage industry popping up around this one item alone.
These games don't teach shit, and the shit they teach is worthless without some conjunctive training.
You make a really valid point with this statement:But generally, that's part of a bigger problem, that realistic tactics don't work well in games and viceversa.
To use some allegory evidence, I LOVE PLAYING AGAINST MILITARY AND LEO TRAINED PEOPLE IN PAINTBALL! The tactics that they learn are based on staying alive. You don't really die in paintball or video games. The tactics applied would spell disaster in a real world scenario, but in a set rules environment with the ultimate outcome being a "time out" - sacrificial tactics win the day.
You could make the argument that these games actually train our children to be piss poor soldiers.
OK, let me clarify where I get my information from. I have never been in the military, but I have studied military tactics from a philosophical perspective. I shoot competitive IDPA events, but I am not combat trained. I play games with guns that reinforce responsible use of guns in stressful situations, but they are no substitute for LEO or Military training.
Now, this does give me some insight to tactics in only the most basic of definitions - but I am not qualified to speak as if I was an instructor at Thunder Ranch.
To answer your question, you don't lean on cover because the recoil of the weapon is transfered into the item you are using as cover and according to Newton's Third Law the cover will actually push back on you. This significantly adds to the time and difficulty of obtaining a sight picture on your following shots. Many people will argue that it is a stabilizing element and that you can get a more accurate shot off from using it. That may be true with a rifle, but with a handgun, and I am making a large assumption by including combat situations with a rifle also, you need to ensure that your target is down. To hedge your bets, you need to facilitate a quick and accurate follow up shot (if necessary).
As far as crowding cover - it really makes action difficult for you. If you have to reload, your movements are hindered by your proximity to the cover element. If you are moving around cover and you are hugging it, your weapon presents itself around corners in a manner that doesn't allow you to react to a close threat.
Cover works just as well if you three feet away from it - as long as the threat is on the opposite side of that cover AND you are not exposing yourself.
You overestimate the "simulation" environment that these games provide.
I remember reading a story about a drill sergeant who had noticed a difference in how his newest recruits who played FPS games adapted to training in relation to how the non gaming recruits performed. Needless to say that this was picked up by every media outlet possible and misrepresented to make it look like video games were training our children to be killers.
I agree that there are some elements that a FPS, or any other action game for that matter, can most certainly influence - but these things are useless without weapons training.
Tactical Priority - the closest thing to you is slightly more dangerous than something far away. Anyone who has ever played any game involving bad guys who attempt to hurt you is that the closest guy is generally the biggest threat.
Tactical Sequence - Sometimes baddies come extremely fast and everything needs to be slowed down. Basically the theory of "get em all bleeding first."
Using cover - No, not in actuality, but in theory. Identifying what can be used as cover from certain vantage points is most certainly developed when playing any video games. "He can't see me if I hide behind this!" Now, lets address the practical use of cover. A video game is not going to teach you that you shouldn't lean on or crowd your cover, something everyone does off the bat because they see it in movies. A game also can't teach you what cover is actually protective and which is merely visual cover. Real training does that.
None of these skills are practical without significant weapons training. In fact, they're pretty close to worthless, so I think the term "combat simulator" is a little harsh. Maybe combat game is more accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
She came home one day to me playing Punch Out with no problems. "How did you get that to work? I have the power cord in my purse!"
"The answering machine runs on the same voltage." I replied.
She laughed and said I would be just fine. She quit trying to control that specific behavior and instead channeled it into positives. Thats when I learned to program.
Why buy an AK when you can purchase an AR-15?
You can easily obtain a working AK also, many for under 500 dollars. Plenty of people use them in 3 gun competitions because the 223 ammo for their ARs is getting too expensive.
Now, getting one thats fully automatic is a different story.
I've never heard anyone complain about an ad they liked. Just ads that weren't relevant.
In all actuality, you might see certain companies embrace this.
I can honestly say that the "Will It Blend" people would be totally open to sponsoring a game development initiative where one of the bosses was a big blender monster that constantly screamed "WILL YOU BLEND!"
The trick is to advertise in a self depreciating manner. If you know that players might respond negatively to your ads being all over a game, you could easily attempt to have an element of the game be created for purposeful abuse that had your branding all over it. While the traditional marketers would most certainly balk at such a venture - it may not be such a bad idea. If the end results are funny, you can really garner a large amount of benevolent feelings towards your product. If done very well you may actually create a sense of "well, at least these guys get it."
This isn't a direct example, but Red vs. Blue really does criticize the ridiculousness of capture the flag - and people love it.
OK, to begin my argument I am going to set forward two definitions that the semantics can be debated evenly upon.
Art
Fine Art. Yes, I know he said 'High Art', but there was no such definition so I used the next best thing I could find.
Looking at the two definitions, Ebert's statements seem a little soft. The first bullet point for 'Art' seems to support video games of at least qualifying for consideration inside its ranks. Using the first two bullet points for 'Fine Art', the incredibly controversial Super Columbine Massacre RPG can easily be debated as a form of Fine Art. Have fun arguing over that one.
Bullet points three and four under 'Fine Art' seem to support Ebert's assertion. 'Fine Art' is not functional, and to be judged by the theories of art. It also asserts a hard definition for the forms worthy of this definition (painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, music). My initial issue with this is the 'theories' part. Theories are built upon to create new theories using new information gathered from the application of the older theories. Is there a cut off point for the validity of a theory in this case? What are the criteria used to establish applicable 'thoery' in this sense? What was the criteria used to establish writing as able to qualify as 'Fine Art' when at one point all that existed was verbal story telling? Ebert compares games with Shakespeare, but according to this definition - that doesn't quite qualify as 'Fine Art' either. Once again, I realize he said 'High Art', but 'Fine Art' and "High Art' are used interchangeably by many.
Bullet point 5 of 'Fine Art' seems to remove everything Ebert has ever reviewed from the definition of 'Fine Art', making him wholly unqualified to define what is and isn't able to attain the categorization. I don't know, maybe Ebert has reviewed a movie that wasn't created for commercial purposes - but I highly doubt it. Even if he has, his references to Shakespeare's writings and Andy Warhol's paintings fail as these were commercial efforts.
Take it one step further, Andy Warhol's paintings were created in his famous studio the Factory. Andy used capitalisms methodologies as a method of delivering his vision. The soup cans weren't art - the ability to create them so efficiently and have people THINK THEY WERE ART was the art. It was a pretty impressive social statement that established him as a great artist, and thereby allowing the definition of 'Fine Art' to be applied to his works. This completely undermines every single one of Ebert's assertions by allowing work to be defined as 'Fine Art' after the fact if the creator can somehow establish their greatness AT ANY POINT IN THEIR WORKS EXISTENCE.
Hell, Van Gogh, and his work, was considered nothing until he DIED - thereby eliminating access to anything that wasn't already created. By this logic, and it has been applied by academics and the plebeians alike, almost ANYTHING can become 'Fine Art'.
Fundamentally, I see this mans statement as a great example of how large the generation gap really is between the Boomers and X on. The Boomers fight to keep their definitions relevant and superior instead of recognizing the disruptive cultural technologies created of the past two decades and embracing the possibilities they enable.
I thought it was only illegal to distribute or sell it. I thought I was free to develop anything I want. In any case its moot, because you can show a list of legitimate uses for modded equipment.
Actually, in the US we overturned that.
t ual.child.porn/
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.vir
Violence isn't cool because the marketing machine says its cool. Violence is cool because people LIKE it.
Before big marketing the most well known media was violent. Beowulf comes to mind. People LOVE violence. Don't confuse the fact that your brother is slipping and his friends are there too as some sort of societal problem. What are the chances your brother is an idiot and that his friends are idiots too? What are the chances they are acting like normal 22 year olds who really have no idea what the world is like.
Try this, instead of enabling his punk ass, kick him out. Instead of letting guys sleep on your porch, call the cops.
The problem isn't that these kids are bombarded with violence, its that they have never felt the full consequences of any action. They were nannied in school, by society, and probably by their parents. They have no clue what the harsh repercussions of the shit actions they take are because many societies have formed an enabling environment where no one is accountable.
Don't try to tell me what I can do because you know someone who can't get their shit together.
You know, I really hate this perspective. It assumes that everyone agrees on what is offensive.
What about what I find offensive? The platitude ridden crap we get now is more offensive to me than some "snuff" game with no artistic merit. I love how these "small minded idiots" are branded as such based on no other criteria than creating something you disagree with. You may think you are voicing the opinion of reason, but its statements like yours that are more censorship favoring than anything else I tend to hear.
How about personal accountability for the media you consume?
How about making choices for yourself instead of assuming your opinion is the opinion?
How about understanding that majority opinion has been shown to be full of shit more than once?
Do you want to tell me when I have to go to bed too?
Seriously, do you think your opinion of tasteful/necessary/allowable levels of violence/sex/drug references/(taboo material) in games/movies/books/TV is the litmus test that we should go by?
I'll give you a reason. I'm a reality grounded, well educated young man who loves the Walter Mitty aspects these games allow me. I don't want to really experience clearing a room full of terrorists like in Rainbow Six:Vegas - but I sure as hell have fun playing with the scenario. I also don't want to fight Zombies or Vampires in real life, but these damn games sure are cool.
To subjugate the populace to watered down media materials because you think it could help prevent violent outbreaks is ridiculous. The only thing it will do is cut down on the number of times that a specific media type can be labeled the trigger for such an event.
Many of them may have lived in an improper family circle, which didn't taught them properly the difference between reality and fantasy.
That would be the definition of psychotic..
In your rush to defend scum you are overlooking the well established standard of treating burglary as a violent crime.
Please tell me where I was defending scum? While the tone of my post may have been somewhat authoritarian, I in no way defended the actions of the hypothetical criminals. If you feel ok with shooting someone who broke into your house to steal, then fine by me. The courts will sort you out if you were an idiot. I CHOOSE not to kill over possessions. This isn't defending criminals one bit. I choose not to kill over possessions because I personally feel it would have an irreversible negative impact on my soul, and not in the biblical "going to hell" sense.
There can be a long established standard for banging your wife on Thursdays for all I care, I'm not following it because its not what I choose to do. Don't try to turn that perspective into some "soft on criminals" stance. Its not. I just don't hold the stereo typical American desire for a fully justified Ramboesque killing spree. There is also a huge difference between shooting someone who is actively committing a crime in your house and shooting someone who is actively trying to get the fuck out of your house. I'm all for killing for defense. I'm not for killing based on trespass and theft. Now, the situation does get murky if you find someone actively in your house. For me, if the asshat hasn't hurt anyone AND he runs, he gets to live.
You do whatever you like.
Thats why I do it here on slashdot, because when that event happens I already know that I'm going to unload my 18 hot round hollow tips from my G17. :P
Here's the problem with this scenario for gun owners (like me.)
If I feel the criminal is a threat to my family, I can fire away as long as they remain a threat. If I happen to wake in the middle of a home robbery and the criminals attempt to immediately flee without presenting a threat to my family, but they don't drop the loot - firing is a bad option. You have to accept you lost your shit.
The way I look at it is this. if it doesn't breathe - I don't kill over it.
Just picking nits here, as I agree with what you're essentially saying, but the following statement bugs me:
Given that there is never any absolutes and no action has any inherent meaning
You do realize for this statement to be true, it in of itself would be an absolute.
I think a more realistic approach would be to state that while there most certainly absolutes none of are qualified to define them or apply hierarchical value to them, forcing us to use relative perspectives to quantify these actions.
The disconnect occurs when the Right wing media outlet needs to report on who the Left wing front runners are. The problem is that the Right wing media outlet has almost no sway over the Left wing viewership - so they have to look at who the Left wing media outlet is reporting on for direction. This is true in vice versa. Literally, Fox is determining who is the left front runner by watching CNN, and CNN is determining who is the right front runner by watching Fox. If either news agency went out and reported that there was a front runner in the opposing viewership's party that wasn't mirrored in the corresponding news service - they would lose credibility and ultimately ad revenue.
Its not commercial interest in the sense of the large governing media body, its commercial interest in perspective of revenue stream. The candidates are dealt with through lobbying, not trying to influence the voter body to a specific canidate who suports their corporate mandates.
Did it occur to you that DVR technology is not anywhere close to new and that people already get the idea. Hell, the concept of fast forwarding was pretty much introduced with the VCR.
I agree completely.
And on a relative point, please notice that you STILL can't find a Wii anywhere - the shit is selling as fast as they can make them.
To be honest, I don't know why Surface is only pointed at businesses right now. I know I would be more than willing to spend 10K to get the largest model available - and not for that "Look at the cool shit I have" reason. I WANT THIS FOR MY OWN USE! I have so many things I am willing to code for it myself its not even funny.
Hell, there were people paying more than that for the first gen HD setups if I remember correctly.
Perhaps, and this is a long stretch, Microsoft learned a lesson with the original XBOX in how difficult it is to actually introduce a consumer hardware product to the masses. Look at the 360 vs. PS3 if you have doubts, the second gen release made ma a convert.
Maybe they see the Apple iPod success and hedge their bets as far as the consumer market is concerned. It is better to release a superior product later than it is to release an innovative product earlier. Hardware isn't software. If you screw up with software, you can release an upgrade. If you screw up with hardware you fail.
I could go on and on. None of this is really mindblowing, but there could be a very decent cottage industry popping up around this one item alone.
Thank you for clarifying my point even more.
These games don't teach shit, and the shit they teach is worthless without some conjunctive training.
You make a really valid point with this statement:But generally, that's part of a bigger problem, that realistic tactics don't work well in games and viceversa.
To use some allegory evidence, I LOVE PLAYING AGAINST MILITARY AND LEO TRAINED PEOPLE IN PAINTBALL! The tactics that they learn are based on staying alive. You don't really die in paintball or video games. The tactics applied would spell disaster in a real world scenario, but in a set rules environment with the ultimate outcome being a "time out" - sacrificial tactics win the day.
You could make the argument that these games actually train our children to be piss poor soldiers.
OK, let me clarify where I get my information from. I have never been in the military, but I have studied military tactics from a philosophical perspective. I shoot competitive IDPA events, but I am not combat trained. I play games with guns that reinforce responsible use of guns in stressful situations, but they are no substitute for LEO or Military training.
Now, this does give me some insight to tactics in only the most basic of definitions - but I am not qualified to speak as if I was an instructor at Thunder Ranch.
To answer your question, you don't lean on cover because the recoil of the weapon is transfered into the item you are using as cover and according to Newton's Third Law the cover will actually push back on you. This significantly adds to the time and difficulty of obtaining a sight picture on your following shots. Many people will argue that it is a stabilizing element and that you can get a more accurate shot off from using it. That may be true with a rifle, but with a handgun, and I am making a large assumption by including combat situations with a rifle also, you need to ensure that your target is down. To hedge your bets, you need to facilitate a quick and accurate follow up shot (if necessary).
As far as crowding cover - it really makes action difficult for you. If you have to reload, your movements are hindered by your proximity to the cover element. If you are moving around cover and you are hugging it, your weapon presents itself around corners in a manner that doesn't allow you to react to a close threat.
Cover works just as well if you three feet away from it - as long as the threat is on the opposite side of that cover AND you are not exposing yourself.
Dude, I wore khaki pants while I downloaded copyrighted material. Khaki pants help fight global warming!
I remember reading a story about a drill sergeant who had noticed a difference in how his newest recruits who played FPS games adapted to training in relation to how the non gaming recruits performed. Needless to say that this was picked up by every media outlet possible and misrepresented to make it look like video games were training our children to be killers.
I agree that there are some elements that a FPS, or any other action game for that matter, can most certainly influence - but these things are useless without weapons training.
None of these skills are practical without significant weapons training. In fact, they're pretty close to worthless, so I think the term "combat simulator" is a little harsh. Maybe combat game is more accurate.