First, I still have to see a video game I could consider as "Art", at least as valuable art. They are entertainment, they can be part of pop culture, but art (as in Beethoven, Rembrandt or Shakespeare)? Sorry, but no.
Second, a painter can work on his spare time, a musician and a writer too, but video games are now an industry. They are not about one artist expressing himself, they are a business. Most people who work in this industry do it mainly as a job, meaning for the money, they don't do it for the love of "art" or "culture". Maybe you don't care about their paychecks, but I'm pretty sure they, on their side, don't give a shit about your culture and your sanity.
Anyway, even if "sane" life depended on commercial pop culture (and I disagree, BTW), I don't see how being free (as in beer) is a necessity. Affordable, maybe, free, no way. If you think it's normal to pay for food, which grow on trees by itself and also which is far more important to your life than a video game, than why don't you find normal to pay the people who create cultural products?
Today's PC games have to be made for a lot of different hardware. If you look at benchmarks, you'll see that the same game, using the same options (mainly video options), can easily range from 5 to 100 FPS depending on hardware. Yet developers have to make sure that the person with the slow computer can still play the game fine. Of course, those options are mostly video, but you also have options with sound and input devices. In a way, this is the same as porting from a design point of view.
Anyway, there is a lot of games that are for PC, XBox, PS3. Big titles will even be available for the Wii and handhelds. So basically, the porting problem is almost the same now as it was 20 years ago. (And don't forget that you also have to localize the game, which cost a lot of money, probably more than porting a game from one hardware to another)
The key problem of porting is not time, it's cost. The people who port are not the same as the one who design the game. In a world where there would be only 1 gaming platform instead of the 4 or 5 that there is now, games would still be the same. The only benefit for the gamer could be a slightly lower price (and that's not even sure since prices are not directly related to cost).
Your second point, saying that it is much more difficult to use the full potential of today's system, is simply not true. It takes more resources, but it's not more difficult. In fact, it's the complete opposite. Today, most of the game is done by artists, not programmers, and they use tools that take care of everything. They create hi-res graphics, and use their tools to downgrade the quality. That's what porting is about. Even programmers use libraries that take care of everything. There is only a handful of programmers (the ones making the engines) who really have to think about different hardware from a programming point of view. As most games will license an engine from someone else, it's obvious porting is not as much of a deal as it was in the 80s for game makers.
BTW, because of a particular project, I'm learning VB 2008 with WPF. The truth is programming with this is incredibly compared to programming a 6502 in assembly and doing everything by hand. In fact, I barely call that programming, it's more designing than programming. I know I will sound like a "get off my lawn" type, but programming today requires a lot less skills than 25 years ago.
Finally, my analogy was not about the gamer, but the manufacturer. Few people modify the components in their cars, but the point is there is a lot of people with different cars. That means that manufacturer must create a lot of parts, that do the exact same thing, simply to fit with the different cars. I need to change my air filter. When I go to my local car parts dealer, the fact is there are dozens of different models. They are all basically the same thing, but with different size, shapes and specifications. It certainly would be simpler for the manufacturer to have only one model to make. Same thing with computer hardware.
First, most mainstream games were multi-platform, except for consoles where there was a lot of exclusives. Second, if you compare the same game for the Amiga, the Atari ST, the C64 and the PC, you will realize that most used the full potential of each machine. The lowest common denominator thing is what happens now, because suits who want to squeeze every pennies out of anything basically took over the whole gaming industry. Finally, as for your comment that "porting" is a waste of time, it really depends on your point of view. In a way, porting means you can reuse a lot of the same and make a full new product for another customer. Sure, for the company, it would have been better if everyone had the exact same computer (the same way it would be better for car parts maker if everyone had the exact same car), but during those time it was the consumer who was the king, not the shareholders.
Oh, and the reason PC games are not CGA and adlib anymore, the reason we don't play with a colecovision anymore, is because of competition between platform.
Big corporations don't care about what potential buyers think because it is easier to make them change their desires with ads and "community management" than it is to give them what they ask.
Anyway, a lot of people don't even know what they really want, they just buy with the hope it will satisfy an unknown desire, so what they ask is meaningless.
I think you failed to understand what I mean with an option in a menu. I view those options as the rules of a game. I'd like to select options I like, and then play the whole game with those options. Basically, I want those option (including difficulty level) to be changeable only at the start of the game, not during the game. That's the difference.
To me, the ability to change those rules whenever I want is exactly like if I suddenly said that deuces are wild in the middle of a poker game.
Of course, I don't want to force anyone to play that way, I know a lot of people play video games for fun and not for the challenge, but having an optional "Iron Man" mode would help me a lot appreciate some games.
BTW, I rarely save in a game. Generally, I save only when I quit playing or if the game has a tendency to crash a lot. With BioShock, I disabled Vita-Chambers and never saved, except for the automatic saves between levels. So getting used to it is not the problem. The problem is knowing I can save and, in a way, cheat my way out of difficulties.
The problem, I mean its effect, is more psychological than functional. Even if I change the binding, I KNOW the possibility to save before something dangerous is still there. That's what is distracting and somewhat break immersion.
Anyway, you seem to be against an option in a menu. Why? I must admit I never understood why people were against those little options that cost basically nothing. For example, in a lot of games there is an option to change the look of your character. Personally, I don't care at all and choose whatever is by default. But if people need it, for whatever reasons, then why not?
I do agree, but it would still be nice if I could disable the possibility of quick saving in a configuration menu. It's easier to resist once the temptation to cheat, than to resist it every 2 minutes. Even if I don't save, I still think about it sometimes and I find it distracting.
It's particularly true for games where you automatically respawn. I certainly want a way to disable that feature.
You are not a "hardcore" gamer at all. When I was a teen, one of the game I loved was "The Last V8" for the C64 (do a search on youtube to see a video if you don't already know it). It takes less than 2 minutes to finish a game, but in order to be able to finish it, it took me more than 10 hours of retries. (It was a great game)
Oh, and I don't consider myself really "hardcore", only an "enthusiast" gamer.
As for the core audience getting older, well, I am obviously getting older, and I do have a job, but it doesn't mean I now like easy pastimes. I still love challenging games. The only way I could appreciate BioShock was with Vita-Chambers and every other hand-holding disabled and without using saves (except for the automatic saves between levels). Otherwise there is simply no point in playing this game. As another example, I found Oblivion utterly boring because of having absolutely no challenge. Ironically, I found that game to be one of the most frustrating I ever played, precisely because it was way too easy. I can accept not being good enough to finish a game, but I hate when I waste my time.
Actually, I think the root of the problem is "calories", from an energy point of view, are not what people find important. What they want to know, is the relationship between the food they eat and the activity they do. In that sense, even if oxygen consumption is the way to go to measure calories burnt, it is still not reliable for answering what people want to know since we don't know exactly the amount of energy one particular person will get from a particular piece of food.
Anyway, I'd agree that heart rate is not reliable at all from an absolute point of view, but based on my experience it is still a good indicator if put within the context of other parameters (VO2 max, resting and maximum heart beat, weight...), which a good heart rate monitor will consider. Out of curiosity I once compared the food I was eating with what my heart rate monitor was telling I was using, and I'd say it was more or less on target. A good heart rate monitor is certainly more accurate than a simple table based on "activity" and "weight" alone (which severely overestimate calories used, at least for someone like me).
As for a higher muscle mass burning calories 24/7, I mostly disagree (depending on what you mean, obviously) and I believe this is more a myth based on wishful thinking than anything else. Obviously, having to move more weight around will make you burn more calories all day long (it doesn't matter if the excess weight is due to fat, muscle or a backpack), but I don't believe the difference while sleeping or watching TV under normal condition (not extreme cold, for example, where muscle are used to increase body temperature) is significant. If you have hard data about that, I'm certainly interested.
I have a heart rate monitor, which is a somewhat good tool to evaluate burnt calories. 16 miles per hour on a bike (flat road and no or little wind) will be around 500 calories an hour. 20 miles per hour will jump to about 750 calories (I have a cheap and heavy mountain bike). Running 9 miles per hour will be about 900 calories. As for weight lifting, it's difficult to say because there is a lot of pauses between series (which depend a lot on the number of people in the gym), but I'd guess 400 to 500 calories for a regular session (about an hour) would be about right.
I'm not saying your site is wrong, but it is certainly wrong for me (at least according to my heart rate monitor).
I'm curious... Could other people post their own data to compare?
Strategy is mostly about managing resources (like ammos and health) in order to achieve a general goal (like killing ennemies). Puzzle is about finding one solution (not necessarily unique) to one particular problem.
What it means is that choosing a weapon instead of another depending on the resource you have and on the penalty for using a less adequate weapon is strategy. But using first a Hypnotize Big Daddy plasmid to lure him in front of a security camera and then using the Security Bullseye Plasmid to kill him requires close to no resources. It also requires close to no action skills. The only thing it requires is finding one solution to a single problem. The difficulty is finding THAT solution. This is a puzzle kind of problem to me. The only difference with the classical adventure game where you have to search through you inventory to find out what object to use on the "problem" is the game don't tell you explicitly it is a puzzle and it doesn't block you if you don't find a good solution.
Considering that I found Oblivion extremely boring and stopped playing quite fast, I think that "plain more fun" are not the right word. Particularly when considering that AFTER I quit playing Oblivion I decided to play with Ultima Underworld again, and still found that old old school game a lot more "fun".
You are missing some details... If I have to draw a map by hand, then it's obvious I won't note everything as it would take me too much time. So I'll try to note only what I think is important. For example I might only draw a single line to represent a corridor, but I won't represent it's width or it's exact length. The result is something that could be easily guessed by looking at an exact map of the level, like the possible location for a secret room, will be a lot more difficult to find on a hand drawn map.
Play BioShock on Hard, with Vita-Chambers and every other hand-holding disabled, and with no save, except for the automatic saves at the beginning of levels. The result is it will transform a light and very simple pastime into a heavy thinking game. For example, after some thinking you'll realize that the "useless" security bullseye plasmid is in fact one of the most powerful (I'll let you think about why).
If puzzles are not "as noticeable", it simply means they are a lot easier. Seriously, how can you not notice that you are stuck in a game and that you have to THINK to know what to do next?
Although there are a few exceptions (I will probably buy Birth of America 2 if I can get a demo first), the truth is most indie games are either about small and very light casual games, or about being yet another clone of a popular game from the 80s. It seems better to me to look at small publishers (particularly Europeans) rather than Indies. For example, a publisher like Focus Home Interactive is much better for innovation than the true indie world.
The other solution for people who want "innovation", is to play with games from the 80s or early 90s. Of course everyone knows about Lemmings or Worms, but there is still a lot of people who never played Sentinel or Balance of Power. From time to time, I still discover games I missed in the 80s that are much better than what the indies are offering now.
So you are saying that the real problem is China has too much population? What is the solution? Transfer something like 500,000,000 Chinese to the US so both countries have the same number of people? Would it be better to simply kill'em all? Should we also kill 90% of the whole planet in order solve completely all environmental problem?
I could agree that population control is part of of the role of a government. I could agree that polluting because of standard of living or inconsiderate waste production, and polluting because of a lack of population control is more or less the same. But I'd like to remind you that China has a population control policy and that most people in western countries criticize the Chinese government for that. So how can you blame someone for a problem, if you also blame him for trying to solve that problem? Because of that, and in order to avoid an hypocritical situation, the only number that I find honest is per capita.
Anyway, you can't have it both ways. It's either per capita for each country, or total for each country. You can't compare the US to Canada on a per capita basis, and then compare the US to China on a total basis. It's one or the other.
So you are saying that if in Canada each person polluted five times more than the average American... it would be OK and Canada would be a model country because the net effect would still be half of the US?
You forget that linux is just a kernel, it's not a whole system. No matter how good a kernel might be, if the rest of the system is buggy or incomplete, then people will choose something else. Every six months I try the new release of Ubuntu, and every six months I see serious bugs and limitations within 30 minutes of testing. It's certainly usable, but usable is not good enough. The result is, although I install linux server professionally, I use Windows almost exclusively for my personal needs.
Video games stopped being for gamers a long time ago. Now they are for teenage boys who don't want a real game but simply a pastime that makes them look "cool", who like to pretend they are gamers without actually having to play with real games. I played with a few X-Box games, and they have very little challenge. In some, like BioShock, there is simply no way to lose, you can just see what's next. How can you call something where you are sure to win "a game"? Calling those "games" interactive video entertainment instead of video games would certainly be more truthful.
Nintendo's brilliant move was simply to stop making entertainment for teenage boys who like to pretend they are cool, and actually make entertainment for the broader audience of people who don't care about looks and who simply want some light fun with their friend. (BTW, I don't own a Wii and I don't intend to)
I'd say the best thing you can do for you kid is to read the book at the same time that they do, then discuss the themes in it.
You mean like an exam or something? Seriously, let the kid think for himself, let him discover ideas by himself, don't try to guide his fantasies. That's the best thing someone can do. If the kid wants to talk with you about something he read, be there, I guess, but I seriously doubt the kid will want to do that (with his parents). When I was a kid, reading was my escape, it was a way for me to grow up (as in learning to be self-sufficient). It was the time when I didn't have to follow advice or learn and interpret things the way other people wanted me to do. That's why I loved reading so much. I certainly would have read a lot less if it was another "listen to your parent" thing.
I strongly disagree, at least with the Dune series. I read Dune (although not in English) when I was 11 or 12, and I believe it's the perfect kid sci-fi. It's light, it present political and social ideas with simple examples instead of explanations, it is morally clear cut so the kid will know who's who, and yet introduce him to some exoticism which can open the kid's mind and certainly lead him to dream about this world. I certainly did.
On the other hand, I think foundation is better for a 14 or 15 years old. It's better on the "idea" side, it has more food for thought, but there is a lot less action and heroism. It's certainly more nerdy than Dune.
(Disclaimer, I read both series a long time ago, so I'm relying on a 25 to 30 years old memory... I may be wrong)
Just out of curiosity, could you give me an example of how using my real name to post on slashdot, instead of hiding behind a pseudonym, can help someone steal my identity? I agree it does hurt my reputation, but I'm not ashamed of who I am and of my ideas.
Personally, I think that if people were forced to use their real name then the Internet would be a much better place.
Your example is great on paper, but doesn't work in real life for people who use email a lot. Very few people are consistent enough and have a good enough memory to always use the same labels for the same things.
If you take some time examining someone mailbox, you'll realize that in "May" they use the "Play" sub-folder, while in July they used the "Entertainment" sub-folder. They do this with a hierarchical organization, and they will do this with a label system. From time to time, they will create a new label instead of using one that already exist, simply because they forgot the name of the label they used before (and they won't take the time to always examine their list of labels to see if they already created something similar). Searching will then become more difficult because they'll have to examine every labels created and try every labels that might be synonymous to what they are looking for.
The advantage of the hierarchical organization is, at it always present a limited number of choices to the user. It doesn't matter if in "May" they used "Play" and in "July" they used "Entertainment", they will be able to put their email in the correct sub-folder simply by looking at what's in "May" and "July". In a way, a hierarchical system visually guide the user to follow his own system, and so it will be much easier for him to keep organized. Basically, it's the old debate of recognition against recollection.
Yes, I'm aware it's possible to implement some kind of auto-search function to get the same result with labels, both when you search for old email and assign a label to a new one. But first there is no such system with Gmail and I won't choose a solution based on what could, one day, be implemented after an engineer stop thinking he knows better and actually try to give his customers a tool adapted to them. Second, instead of a simple solution, you end up with something that looks more and more like bloatware. I'm not always against bloatware, but it is still a dangerous thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I still have to see a video game I could consider as "Art", at least as valuable art. They are entertainment, they can be part of pop culture, but art (as in Beethoven, Rembrandt or Shakespeare)? Sorry, but no.
Second, a painter can work on his spare time, a musician and a writer too, but video games are now an industry. They are not about one artist expressing himself, they are a business. Most people who work in this industry do it mainly as a job, meaning for the money, they don't do it for the love of "art" or "culture". Maybe you don't care about their paychecks, but I'm pretty sure they, on their side, don't give a shit about your culture and your sanity.
Anyway, even if "sane" life depended on commercial pop culture (and I disagree, BTW), I don't see how being free (as in beer) is a necessity. Affordable, maybe, free, no way. If you think it's normal to pay for food, which grow on trees by itself and also which is far more important to your life than a video game, than why don't you find normal to pay the people who create cultural products?
Today's PC games have to be made for a lot of different hardware. If you look at benchmarks, you'll see that the same game, using the same options (mainly video options), can easily range from 5 to 100 FPS depending on hardware. Yet developers have to make sure that the person with the slow computer can still play the game fine. Of course, those options are mostly video, but you also have options with sound and input devices. In a way, this is the same as porting from a design point of view.
Anyway, there is a lot of games that are for PC, XBox, PS3. Big titles will even be available for the Wii and handhelds. So basically, the porting problem is almost the same now as it was 20 years ago. (And don't forget that you also have to localize the game, which cost a lot of money, probably more than porting a game from one hardware to another)
The key problem of porting is not time, it's cost. The people who port are not the same as the one who design the game. In a world where there would be only 1 gaming platform instead of the 4 or 5 that there is now, games would still be the same. The only benefit for the gamer could be a slightly lower price (and that's not even sure since prices are not directly related to cost).
Your second point, saying that it is much more difficult to use the full potential of today's system, is simply not true. It takes more resources, but it's not more difficult. In fact, it's the complete opposite. Today, most of the game is done by artists, not programmers, and they use tools that take care of everything. They create hi-res graphics, and use their tools to downgrade the quality. That's what porting is about. Even programmers use libraries that take care of everything. There is only a handful of programmers (the ones making the engines) who really have to think about different hardware from a programming point of view. As most games will license an engine from someone else, it's obvious porting is not as much of a deal as it was in the 80s for game makers.
BTW, because of a particular project, I'm learning VB 2008 with WPF. The truth is programming with this is incredibly compared to programming a 6502 in assembly and doing everything by hand. In fact, I barely call that programming, it's more designing than programming. I know I will sound like a "get off my lawn" type, but programming today requires a lot less skills than 25 years ago.
Finally, my analogy was not about the gamer, but the manufacturer. Few people modify the components in their cars, but the point is there is a lot of people with different cars. That means that manufacturer must create a lot of parts, that do the exact same thing, simply to fit with the different cars. I need to change my air filter. When I go to my local car parts dealer, the fact is there are dozens of different models. They are all basically the same thing, but with different size, shapes and specifications. It certainly would be simpler for the manufacturer to have only one model to make. Same thing with computer hardware.
First, most mainstream games were multi-platform, except for consoles where there was a lot of exclusives. Second, if you compare the same game for the Amiga, the Atari ST, the C64 and the PC, you will realize that most used the full potential of each machine. The lowest common denominator thing is what happens now, because suits who want to squeeze every pennies out of anything basically took over the whole gaming industry. Finally, as for your comment that "porting" is a waste of time, it really depends on your point of view. In a way, porting means you can reuse a lot of the same and make a full new product for another customer. Sure, for the company, it would have been better if everyone had the exact same computer (the same way it would be better for car parts maker if everyone had the exact same car), but during those time it was the consumer who was the king, not the shareholders.
Oh, and the reason PC games are not CGA and adlib anymore, the reason we don't play with a colecovision anymore, is because of competition between platform.
Big corporations don't care about what potential buyers think because it is easier to make them change their desires with ads and "community management" than it is to give them what they ask.
Anyway, a lot of people don't even know what they really want, they just buy with the hope it will satisfy an unknown desire, so what they ask is meaningless.
I think you failed to understand what I mean with an option in a menu. I view those options as the rules of a game. I'd like to select options I like, and then play the whole game with those options. Basically, I want those option (including difficulty level) to be changeable only at the start of the game, not during the game. That's the difference.
To me, the ability to change those rules whenever I want is exactly like if I suddenly said that deuces are wild in the middle of a poker game.
Of course, I don't want to force anyone to play that way, I know a lot of people play video games for fun and not for the challenge, but having an optional "Iron Man" mode would help me a lot appreciate some games.
BTW, I rarely save in a game. Generally, I save only when I quit playing or if the game has a tendency to crash a lot. With BioShock, I disabled Vita-Chambers and never saved, except for the automatic saves between levels. So getting used to it is not the problem. The problem is knowing I can save and, in a way, cheat my way out of difficulties.
The problem, I mean its effect, is more psychological than functional. Even if I change the binding, I KNOW the possibility to save before something dangerous is still there. That's what is distracting and somewhat break immersion.
Anyway, you seem to be against an option in a menu. Why? I must admit I never understood why people were against those little options that cost basically nothing. For example, in a lot of games there is an option to change the look of your character. Personally, I don't care at all and choose whatever is by default. But if people need it, for whatever reasons, then why not?
I do agree, but it would still be nice if I could disable the possibility of quick saving in a configuration menu. It's easier to resist once the temptation to cheat, than to resist it every 2 minutes. Even if I don't save, I still think about it sometimes and I find it distracting.
It's particularly true for games where you automatically respawn. I certainly want a way to disable that feature.
You are not a "hardcore" gamer at all. When I was a teen, one of the game I loved was "The Last V8" for the C64 (do a search on youtube to see a video if you don't already know it). It takes less than 2 minutes to finish a game, but in order to be able to finish it, it took me more than 10 hours of retries. (It was a great game)
Oh, and I don't consider myself really "hardcore", only an "enthusiast" gamer.
As for the core audience getting older, well, I am obviously getting older, and I do have a job, but it doesn't mean I now like easy pastimes. I still love challenging games. The only way I could appreciate BioShock was with Vita-Chambers and every other hand-holding disabled and without using saves (except for the automatic saves between levels). Otherwise there is simply no point in playing this game. As another example, I found Oblivion utterly boring because of having absolutely no challenge. Ironically, I found that game to be one of the most frustrating I ever played, precisely because it was way too easy. I can accept not being good enough to finish a game, but I hate when I waste my time.
Actually, I think the root of the problem is "calories", from an energy point of view, are not what people find important. What they want to know, is the relationship between the food they eat and the activity they do. In that sense, even if oxygen consumption is the way to go to measure calories burnt, it is still not reliable for answering what people want to know since we don't know exactly the amount of energy one particular person will get from a particular piece of food.
Anyway, I'd agree that heart rate is not reliable at all from an absolute point of view, but based on my experience it is still a good indicator if put within the context of other parameters (VO2 max, resting and maximum heart beat, weight...), which a good heart rate monitor will consider. Out of curiosity I once compared the food I was eating with what my heart rate monitor was telling I was using, and I'd say it was more or less on target. A good heart rate monitor is certainly more accurate than a simple table based on "activity" and "weight" alone (which severely overestimate calories used, at least for someone like me).
As for a higher muscle mass burning calories 24/7, I mostly disagree (depending on what you mean, obviously) and I believe this is more a myth based on wishful thinking than anything else. Obviously, having to move more weight around will make you burn more calories all day long (it doesn't matter if the excess weight is due to fat, muscle or a backpack), but I don't believe the difference while sleeping or watching TV under normal condition (not extreme cold, for example, where muscle are used to increase body temperature) is significant. If you have hard data about that, I'm certainly interested.
I'm not the parent poster, but I do this and I live in Montréal.
I have a heart rate monitor, which is a somewhat good tool to evaluate burnt calories. 16 miles per hour on a bike (flat road and no or little wind) will be around 500 calories an hour. 20 miles per hour will jump to about 750 calories (I have a cheap and heavy mountain bike). Running 9 miles per hour will be about 900 calories. As for weight lifting, it's difficult to say because there is a lot of pauses between series (which depend a lot on the number of people in the gym), but I'd guess 400 to 500 calories for a regular session (about an hour) would be about right.
I'm not saying your site is wrong, but it is certainly wrong for me (at least according to my heart rate monitor).
I'm curious... Could other people post their own data to compare?
Strategy is mostly about managing resources (like ammos and health) in order to achieve a general goal (like killing ennemies). Puzzle is about finding one solution (not necessarily unique) to one particular problem.
What it means is that choosing a weapon instead of another depending on the resource you have and on the penalty for using a less adequate weapon is strategy. But using first a Hypnotize Big Daddy plasmid to lure him in front of a security camera and then using the Security Bullseye Plasmid to kill him requires close to no resources. It also requires close to no action skills. The only thing it requires is finding one solution to a single problem. The difficulty is finding THAT solution. This is a puzzle kind of problem to me. The only difference with the classical adventure game where you have to search through you inventory to find out what object to use on the "problem" is the game don't tell you explicitly it is a puzzle and it doesn't block you if you don't find a good solution.
Considering that I found Oblivion extremely boring and stopped playing quite fast, I think that "plain more fun" are not the right word. Particularly when considering that AFTER I quit playing Oblivion I decided to play with Ultima Underworld again, and still found that old old school game a lot more "fun".
You are missing some details... If I have to draw a map by hand, then it's obvious I won't note everything as it would take me too much time. So I'll try to note only what I think is important. For example I might only draw a single line to represent a corridor, but I won't represent it's width or it's exact length. The result is something that could be easily guessed by looking at an exact map of the level, like the possible location for a secret room, will be a lot more difficult to find on a hand drawn map.
Play BioShock on Hard, with Vita-Chambers and every other hand-holding disabled, and with no save, except for the automatic saves at the beginning of levels. The result is it will transform a light and very simple pastime into a heavy thinking game. For example, after some thinking you'll realize that the "useless" security bullseye plasmid is in fact one of the most powerful (I'll let you think about why).
If puzzles are not "as noticeable", it simply means they are a lot easier. Seriously, how can you not notice that you are stuck in a game and that you have to THINK to know what to do next?
Although there are a few exceptions (I will probably buy Birth of America 2 if I can get a demo first), the truth is most indie games are either about small and very light casual games, or about being yet another clone of a popular game from the 80s. It seems better to me to look at small publishers (particularly Europeans) rather than Indies. For example, a publisher like Focus Home Interactive is much better for innovation than the true indie world.
The other solution for people who want "innovation", is to play with games from the 80s or early 90s. Of course everyone knows about Lemmings or Worms, but there is still a lot of people who never played Sentinel or Balance of Power. From time to time, I still discover games I missed in the 80s that are much better than what the indies are offering now.
So you are saying that the real problem is China has too much population? What is the solution? Transfer something like 500,000,000 Chinese to the US so both countries have the same number of people? Would it be better to simply kill'em all? Should we also kill 90% of the whole planet in order solve completely all environmental problem?
I could agree that population control is part of of the role of a government. I could agree that polluting because of standard of living or inconsiderate waste production, and polluting because of a lack of population control is more or less the same. But I'd like to remind you that China has a population control policy and that most people in western countries criticize the Chinese government for that. So how can you blame someone for a problem, if you also blame him for trying to solve that problem? Because of that, and in order to avoid an hypocritical situation, the only number that I find honest is per capita.
Anyway, you can't have it both ways. It's either per capita for each country, or total for each country. You can't compare the US to Canada on a per capita basis, and then compare the US to China on a total basis. It's one or the other.
So you are saying that if in Canada each person polluted five times more than the average American... it would be OK and Canada would be a model country because the net effect would still be half of the US?
You forget that linux is just a kernel, it's not a whole system. No matter how good a kernel might be, if the rest of the system is buggy or incomplete, then people will choose something else. Every six months I try the new release of Ubuntu, and every six months I see serious bugs and limitations within 30 minutes of testing. It's certainly usable, but usable is not good enough. The result is, although I install linux server professionally, I use Windows almost exclusively for my personal needs.
Video games stopped being for gamers a long time ago. Now they are for teenage boys who don't want a real game but simply a pastime that makes them look "cool", who like to pretend they are gamers without actually having to play with real games. I played with a few X-Box games, and they have very little challenge. In some, like BioShock, there is simply no way to lose, you can just see what's next. How can you call something where you are sure to win "a game"? Calling those "games" interactive video entertainment instead of video games would certainly be more truthful.
Nintendo's brilliant move was simply to stop making entertainment for teenage boys who like to pretend they are cool, and actually make entertainment for the broader audience of people who don't care about looks and who simply want some light fun with their friend. (BTW, I don't own a Wii and I don't intend to)
I'd say the best thing you can do for you kid is to read the book at the same time that they do, then discuss the themes in it.
You mean like an exam or something? Seriously, let the kid think for himself, let him discover ideas by himself, don't try to guide his fantasies. That's the best thing someone can do. If the kid wants to talk with you about something he read, be there, I guess, but I seriously doubt the kid will want to do that (with his parents). When I was a kid, reading was my escape, it was a way for me to grow up (as in learning to be self-sufficient). It was the time when I didn't have to follow advice or learn and interpret things the way other people wanted me to do. That's why I loved reading so much. I certainly would have read a lot less if it was another "listen to your parent" thing.
I strongly disagree, at least with the Dune series. I read Dune (although not in English) when I was 11 or 12, and I believe it's the perfect kid sci-fi. It's light, it present political and social ideas with simple examples instead of explanations, it is morally clear cut so the kid will know who's who, and yet introduce him to some exoticism which can open the kid's mind and certainly lead him to dream about this world. I certainly did.
On the other hand, I think foundation is better for a 14 or 15 years old. It's better on the "idea" side, it has more food for thought, but there is a lot less action and heroism. It's certainly more nerdy than Dune.
(Disclaimer, I read both series a long time ago, so I'm relying on a 25 to 30 years old memory... I may be wrong)
So I guess I'm a fool then...
Just out of curiosity, could you give me an example of how using my real name to post on slashdot, instead of hiding behind a pseudonym, can help someone steal my identity? I agree it does hurt my reputation, but I'm not ashamed of who I am and of my ideas.
Personally, I think that if people were forced to use their real name then the Internet would be a much better place.
Your example is great on paper, but doesn't work in real life for people who use email a lot. Very few people are consistent enough and have a good enough memory to always use the same labels for the same things.
If you take some time examining someone mailbox, you'll realize that in "May" they use the "Play" sub-folder, while in July they used the "Entertainment" sub-folder. They do this with a hierarchical organization, and they will do this with a label system. From time to time, they will create a new label instead of using one that already exist, simply because they forgot the name of the label they used before (and they won't take the time to always examine their list of labels to see if they already created something similar). Searching will then become more difficult because they'll have to examine every labels created and try every labels that might be synonymous to what they are looking for.
The advantage of the hierarchical organization is, at it always present a limited number of choices to the user. It doesn't matter if in "May" they used "Play" and in "July" they used "Entertainment", they will be able to put their email in the correct sub-folder simply by looking at what's in "May" and "July". In a way, a hierarchical system visually guide the user to follow his own system, and so it will be much easier for him to keep organized. Basically, it's the old debate of recognition against recollection.
Yes, I'm aware it's possible to implement some kind of auto-search function to get the same result with labels, both when you search for old email and assign a label to a new one. But first there is no such system with Gmail and I won't choose a solution based on what could, one day, be implemented after an engineer stop thinking he knows better and actually try to give his customers a tool adapted to them. Second, instead of a simple solution, you end up with something that looks more and more like bloatware. I'm not always against bloatware, but it is still a dangerous thing to do.