I don't want a "scathing critique of high school social politics," or anything else for that matter.
Well, then we're in disagreement. Every now and then, an article comes around on slashdot about whether or not games can be considered art. Well, when game developers will actually use the medium to make political or social comments, critiques, and social change, that's when gaming will be an art form. Until then, just running your video game character around town and picking random fights for points is just entertainment, not art. Maybe that's your point, you said you just want something that entertains and engages. Maybe the running around and fighting does that for you, but for me to be engaged, it has to make me think. Until then, maybe 1 out of 2 ain't bad.
Don't tell me that doesn't turn on more viewers to the real show or tell me and then explain why it wouldn't.
The way I understand it is not that it doesn't turn more viewers onto the show but that the studio execs are pissed off that they're not making any money from the online distribution of those clips. So basically, they don't want to wait for the online clips to bring in more viewers - they want to get paid as soon as any person sees anything that has ever been on the show.
Doesn't being a game journalist basically mean you wait for game companies to send you free beta copies of their games, play through a quarter of it (because who can be expected to play through a whole game for a review) and then find the score through a formula whose sole variable is how much ad revenue the company gave you last month?
As others have pointed out, this thesis topic is flawed. You're using only your experiences and drawing a conclusion about everyone in the IT field. With over a 50% divorce rate in this country, it's going to be hard to prove your theory. What kind of divorce rate are you looking for in IT? 75%? You're probably not going to find it.
But it's WILL WRIGHT! If there's any game designer that can solve all the problems of the world, open people's eyes to changing environmental structures, cure world hunger and make people stop fighting and be nice to each other it's the creator of The Sims.
I'm with you. I hate the term hardcore vs casual gamers. I read an interview with Alexey Pajitnov, the creator of Tetris and they called him a casual game maker. I think that's ridiculous. When Tetris came out it was a hardcore game - that's what games were back then. Most older gamers are still playing games because of "casual games" like tetris. If I enjoy the games I played when I was growing up, and I like to find new games that are graphically simple but innovative in terms of gameplay, why does that make me a casual gamer as opposed to some 14 year old who just wants the latest release of Halo?
'Thirty-seven percent of heavy gamers... agreed that featuring actual products or companies in games make the games feel more realistic. About one-third (27 percent) of medium gamers... agreed that in-game ads can add to a game's realism.' Of course, we've all seen instances where ads make the game less realistic."
37 percent and 27 percent aren't high percentages. More than 60 percent of gamers don't think that real ads make a game more realistic, but the way the numbers were stated in the write-up made it seem like a large portion of gamers want real ads in their games.
Who -- besides companies looking for more profits and a constant revenue stream -- actually wants this?
Does it matter if no one besides companies looking for more profits and a constant revenue stream actually wants this? They're the ones making the software, and if there's no easy alternative, people will subscribe to it. What do you think people are gonna do? Start using Linux? Continue using their Windows XP machines for the next 10 years, using an outdated, unsupported browser to check their e-mail? It won't happen.
Jar-Jar just looked fake, as did many other CG characters in Star Wars.
Don't blame the prequel trilogy on shoddy special effects. The effects were ground breaking and amazing. Blame it on Lucas not being capable of directing actors and not being able to write a compelling screenplay. Jar Jar's problem wasn't that he looked "fake." It's that he wasn't an in depth character. If he was written with a real personality and real emotions, he's "look" as real as Ewan McGregor in the film. Special Effects are at their peak. The puppets that were pulled by strings back in the 70s didn't look more real. There was no suspension of disbelief that any of those puppets or costumed monsters in the cantina were real alien beings. But when the puppet was given a personality and great dialogue, as in Yoda, he became one of the most popular characters in the series. Even with his limited facial expressions and body movement, he was "real."
Peter Jackson did a great job with LotR. There were lots of special effects, to be sure, but most weren't relly all that spectacular.
Yes, those special effects in LotR were spectacular. The visual effects industry went crazy over them. The reason that is is that a good visual effect is one that doesn't appear "all that spectacular." It goes unnoticed, but it enhances the mood and feeling of the shot. Over 80 percent of the shots in the LotR had a CG effect in it. The difference between it and Star Wars though was that the effects were incorporated to enhance the believability of the environment, instead of added for the wow factor.
Maybe people just don't want big summer blockbusters anymore? So of course it's gonna be risky throwing $200 million into a film and hoping that enough people want to see it. I don't think television is the answer, though. For $200 million, you could make 50 - 60 two hour movies released in theaters. Maybe George just forgot how. I'd rather see 50 Little Miss Sunshines in theaters. Maybe 25 of them will be bad, but that means there will be 25 good movies instead of 1 super big budget bad one.
If they make it virtually impossible to pirate the OS..., will the cost of the OS come down at all?
No, they will have to offset the higher cost of the operating system to pay for the legal and/or marketing department to come up with a new excuse on why the cost of the OS is so high now that piracy is gone.
You are entitled to those profits if you're a mega corporation with huge influence in every market that your store deals in. Movie studios (and practically everyone else) would go a long way to cater to WalMart. If WalMart walks, the studios would lose a lot of money - perhaps more than they would gain with iTunes revenues.
remember those copy cat crimes stemming from movies? around 10 years back, I remember it was all over the media about how someone copied the movie Money Train in their violent act. In the movie, a person went to a subway station and poured gasoline into the ticket booth and set fire to the operator, and someone did the exact same thing in real life. There was lots of blame for violent movies on that one, but I don't remember any lawsuits.
In the future, the leaders will be lizards. The people are gonna hate the lizards and the lizards will rule the people. But it's still going to be a democracy. The people won't get rid of the lizards because it hasn't occured to them. They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want. So they vote for the lizards because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in.
If not driving causes you anxiety, then you're addicted.
Putting me in any situation in which I am unaccustomed to will cause me some sort of anxiety. Does this mean I'm addicted to my way of life? Of course I am, but at that point the meaning of addiction becomes watered down and useless because everyone is addicted to their daily habits.
You're missing another factor - content. Sure, YouTube grew so fast out of nothing but it was a pioneer in that field, so there weren't many other places to upload and share your videos. But, as it started growing with more videos, more people came, and the more people that came, the more videos were uploaded by them. People don't go there because it's just the name. People go there because there are millions of videos on there that they can send their friends. Sure, the technology is easy to duplicate, but it would be a Herculean task to copy all of the videos that make it popular. The barrier to entry into the online video sharing market is huge now because YouTube has the content, and people don't want to jump from site to site saying "Hmm, what site has that new U2 video?"
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want a "scathing critique of high school social politics," or anything else for that matter.
Well, then we're in disagreement. Every now and then, an article comes around on slashdot about whether or not games can be considered art. Well, when game developers will actually use the medium to make political or social comments, critiques, and social change, that's when gaming will be an art form. Until then, just running your video game character around town and picking random fights for points is just entertainment, not art. Maybe that's your point, you said you just want something that entertains and engages. Maybe the running around and fighting does that for you, but for me to be engaged, it has to make me think. Until then, maybe 1 out of 2 ain't bad.
luddite.
I think I'll let a generation or two act as the guinea pigs for this before me.
Well, by that time, I assure you you won't need it.
Don't tell me that doesn't turn on more viewers to the real show or tell me and then explain why it wouldn't.
The way I understand it is not that it doesn't turn more viewers onto the show but that the studio execs are pissed off that they're not making any money from the online distribution of those clips. So basically, they don't want to wait for the online clips to bring in more viewers - they want to get paid as soon as any person sees anything that has ever been on the show.
Doesn't being a game journalist basically mean you wait for game companies to send you free beta copies of their games, play through a quarter of it (because who can be expected to play through a whole game for a review) and then find the score through a formula whose sole variable is how much ad revenue the company gave you last month?
As others have pointed out, this thesis topic is flawed. You're using only your experiences and drawing a conclusion about everyone in the IT field. With over a 50% divorce rate in this country, it's going to be hard to prove your theory. What kind of divorce rate are you looking for in IT? 75%? You're probably not going to find it.
Now we could get rid of all of those gay translators once and for all.
from your link
Windows Sucks. Unix Sucks. C Sucks.
There's a guy who really hates his job.
For $130 bucks, surely they could include a more ergonomic looking mouse than this
But it's WILL WRIGHT! If there's any game designer that can solve all the problems of the world, open people's eyes to changing environmental structures, cure world hunger and make people stop fighting and be nice to each other it's the creator of The Sims.
I'm with you. I hate the term hardcore vs casual gamers. I read an interview with Alexey Pajitnov, the creator of Tetris and they called him a casual game maker. I think that's ridiculous. When Tetris came out it was a hardcore game - that's what games were back then. Most older gamers are still playing games because of "casual games" like tetris. If I enjoy the games I played when I was growing up, and I like to find new games that are graphically simple but innovative in terms of gameplay, why does that make me a casual gamer as opposed to some 14 year old who just wants the latest release of Halo?
...to the guy who sweeps the floor on-set, is gone.
Lenny?! Oh no! I didn't know he got laid off!
'Thirty-seven percent of heavy gamers ... agreed that featuring actual products or companies in games make the games feel more realistic. About one-third (27 percent) of medium gamers ... agreed that in-game ads can add to a game's realism.' Of course, we've all seen instances where ads make the game less realistic."
37 percent and 27 percent aren't high percentages. More than 60 percent of gamers don't think that real ads make a game more realistic, but the way the numbers were stated in the write-up made it seem like a large portion of gamers want real ads in their games.
Who -- besides companies looking for more profits and a constant revenue stream -- actually wants this?
Does it matter if no one besides companies looking for more profits and a constant revenue stream actually wants this? They're the ones making the software, and if there's no easy alternative, people will subscribe to it. What do you think people are gonna do? Start using Linux? Continue using their Windows XP machines for the next 10 years, using an outdated, unsupported browser to check their e-mail? It won't happen.
Jar-Jar just looked fake, as did many other CG characters in Star Wars.
Don't blame the prequel trilogy on shoddy special effects. The effects were ground breaking and amazing. Blame it on Lucas not being capable of directing actors and not being able to write a compelling screenplay. Jar Jar's problem wasn't that he looked "fake." It's that he wasn't an in depth character. If he was written with a real personality and real emotions, he's "look" as real as Ewan McGregor in the film. Special Effects are at their peak. The puppets that were pulled by strings back in the 70s didn't look more real. There was no suspension of disbelief that any of those puppets or costumed monsters in the cantina were real alien beings. But when the puppet was given a personality and great dialogue, as in Yoda, he became one of the most popular characters in the series. Even with his limited facial expressions and body movement, he was "real."
Peter Jackson did a great job with LotR. There were lots of special effects, to be sure, but most weren't relly all that spectacular.
Yes, those special effects in LotR were spectacular. The visual effects industry went crazy over them. The reason that is is that a good visual effect is one that doesn't appear "all that spectacular." It goes unnoticed, but it enhances the mood and feeling of the shot. Over 80 percent of the shots in the LotR had a CG effect in it. The difference between it and Star Wars though was that the effects were incorporated to enhance the believability of the environment, instead of added for the wow factor.
Maybe people just don't want big summer blockbusters anymore? So of course it's gonna be risky throwing $200 million into a film and hoping that enough people want to see it. I don't think television is the answer, though. For $200 million, you could make 50 - 60 two hour movies released in theaters. Maybe George just forgot how. I'd rather see 50 Little Miss Sunshines in theaters. Maybe 25 of them will be bad, but that means there will be 25 good movies instead of 1 super big budget bad one.
If they make it virtually impossible to pirate the OS ..., will the cost of the OS come down at all?
No, they will have to offset the higher cost of the operating system to pay for the legal and/or marketing department to come up with a new excuse on why the cost of the OS is so high now that piracy is gone.
As a robot, he's way too upbeat and energetic. He should be cynical and depressing like Marvin.
You are entitled to those profits if you're a mega corporation with huge influence in every market that your store deals in. Movie studios (and practically everyone else) would go a long way to cater to WalMart. If WalMart walks, the studios would lose a lot of money - perhaps more than they would gain with iTunes revenues.
remember those copy cat crimes stemming from movies? around 10 years back, I remember it was all over the media about how someone copied the movie Money Train in their violent act. In the movie, a person went to a subway station and poured gasoline into the ticket booth and set fire to the operator, and someone did the exact same thing in real life. There was lots of blame for violent movies on that one, but I don't remember any lawsuits.
In the future, the leaders will be lizards. The people are gonna hate the lizards and the lizards will rule the people. But it's still going to be a democracy. The people won't get rid of the lizards because it hasn't occured to them. They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want. So they vote for the lizards because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in.
*apologies to Douglas Adams
Isn't that the plot to Idiocracy?
So the games industry wants to know what fuels piracy? Well, stuff like this certainly helps quite a bit.
But it also curbs piracy because if you pirate the game, you're just gonna have to buy content for it anyway.
If not driving causes you anxiety, then you're addicted.
Putting me in any situation in which I am unaccustomed to will cause me some sort of anxiety. Does this mean I'm addicted to my way of life? Of course I am, but at that point the meaning of addiction becomes watered down and useless because everyone is addicted to their daily habits.
You're missing another factor - content. Sure, YouTube grew so fast out of nothing but it was a pioneer in that field, so there weren't many other places to upload and share your videos. But, as it started growing with more videos, more people came, and the more people that came, the more videos were uploaded by them. People don't go there because it's just the name. People go there because there are millions of videos on there that they can send their friends. Sure, the technology is easy to duplicate, but it would be a Herculean task to copy all of the videos that make it popular. The barrier to entry into the online video sharing market is huge now because YouTube has the content, and people don't want to jump from site to site saying "Hmm, what site has that new U2 video?"