It's because you don't make a game movie because you have a great story to tell. You make a game movie for cash. The story is an afterthought.
Movie games stink for the same reason. You don't have a great idea for a game. You have a set of characters and you need to find something for them to do.
Storytelling and fun are afterthoughts in these projects.
Does anyone know where I can find game benchmarks for the ATI x1600 Mobile (Apple's laptop GPU) vs. DESKTOP GPUs? Everyone benchmarks the mobile GPUs against the other moble GPUs. I want to know how it compares to my PC.
Users who do not have the inclination, or time, to use trial and error should be able...
Do they have anything to offer to anyone?
I generally agree with this article, but there's a point when you just have to say no. If a user won't spend time, won't spend money, won't put in any effort, and gets frustrated easily, then what good are they to anyone?
I think sometimes these people are rude because they get tired of being taken advantage of by ultra-needy freeloaders who expect the world to conform to their emotional needs.
what environmentalist is going to be persuaded to candidly consider his views on other subjects? Why should he, when he knows that making his peace with nuclear power is going to hurt every other cause he believes in?
See, the cure for this is not to be so wrong in the first place. Had opposition to nuclear power been thoughtful rather than fearful, no one would be admitting they were wrong about anything. Nuclear power would have thrived instead of stagnated. California wouldn't have had those brownouts. There would be far less pollution. Gas would probably be a little cheaper because less crude would be used for home-heating oil. Industry could afford to pay workers more because they're spending less on power. But dishonest fearmongering won and everyone lost.
Feel free to stop it, while considering that the environmentalists have been on the right side of history on plenty of occasions.
Yes, they've helped some things. They've been right sometimes. Good for them when they are. It even excuses some of the minor excesses.
But the fight's been won. The air is clean. The water is clean. The people won't be allowing it to go back to dirty.
You're not being a judicious, even-handed thinker.
What if I'm not? I'm still correct. The environmental fearmongering is wrong. Even if it weren't factually wrong, it's wrong to lie, exaggerate, appeal to hate, demonize, and terrify people for your own fund-raising or political benefit.
Appeals to thoughtfulness are better than appeals to hate and fear. Period.
A set of possible plans of specific action, together with an honest cost/benefit analysis of those plans.
Also, a little less pimping of the global warming cause. Why not argue for an improved future rather than a horrible, horrible future that will still be bad if we listen to environmentalists, but not quite as bad? Some places will be better off with warmer temperatures. Which ones? How much better off?
In the reasonable-case (not the worst-case, which is all we ever hear about) how big of a problem is global warming? Then we can weigh that against how big of a problem the proposed "solutions" are and decide.
The whole thing would be a lot more believable without all the doomsday talk. Doomsday predictions have so-far always been wrong.
So the first year they're less intense, global warming is fixed.
(I know, it's stupid. The whole "global warming caused last year's weather to make me sad" argument is just silly. One year's weather in the Atlantic Ocean is not a "climate".)
I remember they had a drought in East Africa about 20 years ago. There was a big "We are the world" music fundraiser for it. I'm not sure how that made it rain though.
Droughts are not new. Droughts in East Africa have been happening for 1000s of years.
What's the plan for ending them, BTW? Stop driving SUVs?
Global warming caused last year's record number of hurricanes. So this year, when the number of hurricanes is fewer, we'll know it's because global warming has peaked and is no longer a problem. Do we have a deal?
Yeah, exactly - cuz because some people in the past were wrong about a specific topic , everyone who says anything about something that makes you uncomfortable has to be wrong too.
They could be. It's worth considering that they are. That's why I argue for a thoughtful approach. For some reason there are always people who argue against a thoughtful approach. I wonder what their motives are?
We already have droughts, floods, powerful storms, varying jet streams, famines, and lots of other weather. Why should we expect next century's droughts to be drier than last century's? When was the time when the weather was perfect for everyone? What makes you think that you can have the weather you want?
You want to take in the tens of millions of displaced people? If you're in the US, do you remember the trouble that the loss of part of one city caused, last year?
Are they all going to be displaced in one day? Or is it going to happen over the course of a century? Displacement of people already happens over the course of a century based on lots of different factors. Why is this so much worse than if people move from New York to Florida for warm weather and low taxes?
Shouldn't an attempt be made to curtail some of this?
No one has put forth a workable plan. So no. Random, pointless, flailing attempts shouldn't be made. Because it hurts people and doesn't solve the problem.
So 30 years from now, what new things will we be hearing the environmentalists say they were wrong about? And what price will we have paid for heeding their advice?
Maybe people should use their own judgement, thoughtfully weigh all the facts, and consider the consequences instead of just doing whatever some environmental activists say.
The point is that laws hurt people. Sometimes it's intended. Sometimes not. For this reason and others, there should be very few laws.
If you disagree, then you've decided you're OK with hurting people. Or you think you have a god-like ability to control the outcome of events so noting bad can happen.
---
Now this is going off on a tangent:
...driving too quickly... is well established as a safety problem.
Yes. So what? So you should decide how fast everyone drives in every situation?
Even if you should, you can't. Law or no law, people have the ability to go as fast as their car can go. If the law says I can go 20, then I can go 10 or 20 or 100. It's my choice.
So why don't I? What's my motivation to go any particular speed? Is there a law against driving my car off a cliff? Why don't I do it then? If there were a fine for driving off a cliff, would I do it less often?
You are presuming that you care more about my safety and the safety of others than I do. You are incorrect. The same goes for everyone else you're taking choices from with your law.
People also tend to overestimate their driving ability,... their ability to handle high speeds, and they tend to make decisions... based only on their (mis-)estimation of their ability, and their vehicle's... to ignore considerations such as the presence of children, nearby entrances and exits that they cannot see, firestations, and other factors that affect safe speed.
See? You ARE smarter than everyone else. You know what mistakes they'll make. You know exactly the way they should drive in every situation. You're one of the smart people. Everyone else is less smart than you. So we should give up all our choices and let you choose for us.
We are sorry we didn't come to that conclusion earlier. You know how slow we all are, even when we're sober.
Speeding is a good example of the tragedy of the commons.
Yep. Things don't always work out the way you wish they would. That's not something anyone can change, even for one with your superiority.
Once we realize that, we can decide to avoid making it worse by trying to control the outcome of every random event and the choices of every individual.
It isn't that I, or legislators, am smarter than other people. Rather, it is that research into driving behavior provides better information than people's own subjective, egocentric estimates.
Ok, so we don't forfeit our choices because we're stupid, we forfeit them because someone wrote a report. And we're ignorant of that report, but not you.
And legislators always make better decisions than individuals. And there's always a rule that can be formulated and justly applied to every person equally and it works better than individual judgement in every situation.
---
No. People can make their own choices. The outcomes are good enough. Freedom is better than slavery, even if the master makes the right choices every single time.
That might be in part because good laws are written so as not to have negative unintended consequences.
Unintended consequences happen despite the best intentions. That's why they call them unintended.
For example, most people agree that laws against speeding are desirable.
If true, then most people are incorrect.
The speeding law can be formulated carefully
"Because we're so much smarter than everyone else, we can tell them how to live their lives. Because we're ever so much smarter, we can prevent anything bad from happening and anticipate every possible outcome. We're the smart people. We'll make your choices for you. And nothing will ever, ever go wrong. (Or when it does, we'll ignore it. Or it'll just go wrong for you, because you're not one of the smart people or the good people. Or it will have gone wrong because you didn't give us all of your ability to choose, like you should have.)"
The problem with bad laws like the DMCA is that their proponents either haven't formulated them carefully or do not see the negative consequences as negative and so are happy with the overbroad formulation.
The problem with laws is that every single one of them ends up hurting someone, at least a little bit. And most people are willing to go ahead and hurt people just to be able to make choices in other people's lives. Or for money (or the ability to spend money, which is the same thing).
- "Nigeria" is an African country. A prince there will soon be making me very rich. - "Viagra" is a sex drug. I ordered some from a nice company that emailed me. It will also be here soon. - Sun's chip is called "Niagara"
How can an industry truly grow, and an art form evolve, if everyone is gone by the time they hit 30?
Outsourcing. They'll hire people who don't think complaining is a job skill.
Seriously, it's a huge industry with tons of money. I bet someone figures out the answer, makes great games, and gets a lot of that money. I don't think they need Slashdot's help (or whatever it is Slashdot apparently thinks it has to offer).
So who should control what games get made? A committee of Slashdot nerds? I don't think we need any FP Bill Gates shooters, DRM-cracking games, or complaining games. I don't think there will be a lot of studios building Free(tm) games with huge art budgets.
Boo-fricken-hoo. Game companies actually want to sell games. The biggest sales outlet has the most influence. Whiners and freeloaders on message boards have relatively little influence. It's not really a surprise.
Money talks. Money can be used to buy goods and services. Game companies want it for that reason.
If you want non-Walmart influenced games, then start a game company and make games. Don't sell them through Walmart. What's stopping you?
Money is stopping you. You let it influence your decisions. But you're surprised when it influences game company management?
That's one of Google's delisting rules. You're supposed to show the search engine the same thing you show your web site viewers. You're not supposed to trick Google.
LOL. Perhaps in the faith-based world, where "victimize and disenfranchise" translates to something like "prevent us from using government power to force our religious views on everyone else" in real world language...
Yes, "disenfranchise" tends to mean "prevent from using government power". "Power" is used by governments "to force". Religious people have "religious views".
So you are correct. And it seems like we agree on what the "separation of church and state" is used for. I don't agree that it's OK to make religious people second-class citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
It's because you don't make a game movie because you have a great story to tell. You make a game movie for cash. The story is an afterthought.
Movie games stink for the same reason. You don't have a great idea for a game. You have a set of characters and you need to find something for them to do.
Storytelling and fun are afterthoughts in these projects.
I would have thought that was obvious.
Does anyone know where I can find game benchmarks for the ATI x1600 Mobile (Apple's laptop GPU) vs. DESKTOP GPUs? Everyone benchmarks the mobile GPUs against the other moble GPUs. I want to know how it compares to my PC.
This just in:
A product's performance doesn't live up to the hype.
I know we're all shocked that he unthinkable finally happened.
Users who do not have the inclination, or time, to use trial and error should be able...
Do they have anything to offer to anyone?
I generally agree with this article, but there's a point when you just have to say no. If a user won't spend time, won't spend money, won't put in any effort, and gets frustrated easily, then what good are they to anyone?
I think sometimes these people are rude because they get tired of being taken advantage of by ultra-needy freeloaders who expect the world to conform to their emotional needs.
what environmentalist is going to be persuaded to candidly consider his views on other subjects? Why should he, when he knows that making his peace with nuclear power is going to hurt every other cause he believes in?
See, the cure for this is not to be so wrong in the first place. Had opposition to nuclear power been thoughtful rather than fearful, no one would be admitting they were wrong about anything. Nuclear power would have thrived instead of stagnated. California wouldn't have had those brownouts. There would be far less pollution. Gas would probably be a little cheaper because less crude would be used for home-heating oil. Industry could afford to pay workers more because they're spending less on power. But dishonest fearmongering won and everyone lost.
Feel free to stop it, while considering that the environmentalists have been on the right side of history on plenty of occasions.
Yes, they've helped some things. They've been right sometimes. Good for them when they are. It even excuses some of the minor excesses.
But the fight's been won. The air is clean. The water is clean. The people won't be allowing it to go back to dirty.
You're not being a judicious, even-handed thinker.
What if I'm not? I'm still correct. The environmental fearmongering is wrong. Even if it weren't factually wrong, it's wrong to lie, exaggerate, appeal to hate, demonize, and terrify people for your own fund-raising or political benefit.
Appeals to thoughtfulness are better than appeals to hate and fear. Period.
what's missing?
A set of possible plans of specific action, together with an honest cost/benefit analysis of those plans.
Also, a little less pimping of the global warming cause. Why not argue for an improved future rather than a horrible, horrible future that will still be bad if we listen to environmentalists, but not quite as bad? Some places will be better off with warmer temperatures. Which ones? How much better off?
In the reasonable-case (not the worst-case, which is all we ever hear about) how big of a problem is global warming? Then we can weigh that against how big of a problem the proposed "solutions" are and decide.
The whole thing would be a lot more believable without all the doomsday talk. Doomsday predictions have so-far always been wrong.
So the first year they're less intense, global warming is fixed.
(I know, it's stupid. The whole "global warming caused last year's weather to make me sad" argument is just silly. One year's weather in the Atlantic Ocean is not a "climate".)
I remember they had a drought in East Africa about 20 years ago. There was a big "We are the world" music fundraiser for it. I'm not sure how that made it rain though.
Droughts are not new. Droughts in East Africa have been happening for 1000s of years.
What's the plan for ending them, BTW? Stop driving SUVs?
Let's make a deal:
Global warming caused last year's record number of hurricanes. So this year, when the number of hurricanes is fewer, we'll know it's because global warming has peaked and is no longer a problem. Do we have a deal?
Yeah, exactly - cuz because some people in the past were wrong about a specific topic , everyone who says anything about something that makes you uncomfortable has to be wrong too.
They could be. It's worth considering that they are. That's why I argue for a thoughtful approach. For some reason there are always people who argue against a thoughtful approach. I wonder what their motives are?
We already have droughts, floods, powerful storms, varying jet streams, famines, and lots of other weather. Why should we expect next century's droughts to be drier than last century's? When was the time when the weather was perfect for everyone? What makes you think that you can have the weather you want?
You want to take in the tens of millions of displaced people? If you're in the US, do you remember the trouble that the loss of part of one city caused, last year?
Are they all going to be displaced in one day? Or is it going to happen over the course of a century? Displacement of people already happens over the course of a century based on lots of different factors. Why is this so much worse than if people move from New York to Florida for warm weather and low taxes?
Shouldn't an attempt be made to curtail some of this?
No one has put forth a workable plan. So no. Random, pointless, flailing attempts shouldn't be made. Because it hurts people and doesn't solve the problem.
If the cycle continues it will certainly, without a doubt, lead to the death of us as a civilization, whether we were the cause or not.
Yeah, shorter winters and longer growing seasons. I'm out of my mind with panic already.
So 30 years from now, what new things will we be hearing the environmentalists say they were wrong about? And what price will we have paid for heeding their advice?
Maybe people should use their own judgement, thoughtfully weigh all the facts, and consider the consequences instead of just doing whatever some environmental activists say.
GO Global is nice. We don't use the Windows version though.
We haven't found anything better for remote X sessions.
Nope.
The point is that laws hurt people. Sometimes it's intended. Sometimes not. For this reason and others, there should be very few laws.
If you disagree, then you've decided you're OK with hurting people. Or you think you have a god-like ability to control the outcome of events so noting bad can happen.
---
Now this is going off on a tangent:
Yes. So what? So you should decide how fast everyone drives in every situation?
Even if you should, you can't. Law or no law, people have the ability to go as fast as their car can go. If the law says I can go 20, then I can go 10 or 20 or 100. It's my choice.
So why don't I? What's my motivation to go any particular speed? Is there a law against driving my car off a cliff? Why don't I do it then? If there were a fine for driving off a cliff, would I do it less often?
You are presuming that you care more about my safety and the safety of others than I do. You are incorrect. The same goes for everyone else you're taking choices from with your law.
People also tend to overestimate their driving ability,
See? You ARE smarter than everyone else. You know what mistakes they'll make. You know exactly the way they should drive in every situation. You're one of the smart people. Everyone else is less smart than you. So we should give up all our choices and let you choose for us.
We are sorry we didn't come to that conclusion earlier. You know how slow we all are, even when we're sober.
Speeding is a good example of the tragedy of the commons.
Yep. Things don't always work out the way you wish they would. That's not something anyone can change, even for one with your superiority.
Once we realize that, we can decide to avoid making it worse by trying to control the outcome of every random event and the choices of every individual.
It isn't that I, or legislators, am smarter than other people. Rather, it is that research into driving behavior provides better information than people's own subjective, egocentric estimates.
Ok, so we don't forfeit our choices because we're stupid, we forfeit them because someone wrote a report. And we're ignorant of that report, but not you.
And legislators always make better decisions than individuals. And there's always a rule that can be formulated and justly applied to every person equally and it works better than individual judgement in every situation.
---
No. People can make their own choices. The outcomes are good enough. Freedom is better than slavery, even if the master makes the right choices every single time.
That might be in part because good laws are written so as not to have negative unintended consequences.
Unintended consequences happen despite the best intentions. That's why they call them unintended.
For example, most people agree that laws against speeding are desirable.
If true, then most people are incorrect.
The speeding law can be formulated carefully
"Because we're so much smarter than everyone else, we can tell them how to live their lives. Because we're ever so much smarter, we can prevent anything bad from happening and anticipate every possible outcome. We're the smart people. We'll make your choices for you. And nothing will ever, ever go wrong. (Or when it does, we'll ignore it. Or it'll just go wrong for you, because you're not one of the smart people or the good people. Or it will have gone wrong because you didn't give us all of your ability to choose, like you should have.)"
The problem with bad laws like the DMCA is that their proponents either haven't formulated them carefully or do not see the negative consequences as negative and so are happy with the overbroad formulation.
The problem with laws is that every single one of them ends up hurting someone, at least a little bit. And most people are willing to go ahead and hurt people just to be able to make choices in other people's lives. Or for money (or the ability to spend money, which is the same thing).
I like it how the DMCA and other "bad" laws can have unintended consequences, but "good" laws ... nevermind thinking about them for the "good" laws.
After reading the article, I think he's more likely to end up at Area 51.
And look at all the innovative new products that are coming out of Hollywood these days.
- "Nigeria" is an African country. A prince there will soon be making me very rich.
- "Viagra" is a sex drug. I ordered some from a nice company that emailed me. It will also be here soon.
- Sun's chip is called "Niagara"
"Niagera" is none of these things.
How can an industry truly grow, and an art form evolve, if everyone is gone by the time they hit 30?
Outsourcing. They'll hire people who don't think complaining is a job skill.
Seriously, it's a huge industry with tons of money. I bet someone figures out the answer, makes great games, and gets a lot of that money. I don't think they need Slashdot's help (or whatever it is Slashdot apparently thinks it has to offer).
Ok, so you hate Walmart.
So who should control what games get made? A committee of Slashdot nerds? I don't think we need any FP Bill Gates shooters, DRM-cracking games, or complaining games. I don't think there will be a lot of studios building Free(tm) games with huge art budgets.
Boo-fricken-hoo. Game companies actually want to sell games. The biggest sales outlet has the most influence. Whiners and freeloaders on message boards have relatively little influence. It's not really a surprise.
Money talks. Money can be used to buy goods and services. Game companies want it for that reason.
If you want non-Walmart influenced games, then start a game company and make games. Don't sell them through Walmart. What's stopping you?
Money is stopping you. You let it influence your decisions. But you're surprised when it influences game company management?
That's one of Google's delisting rules. You're supposed to show the search engine the same thing you show your web site viewers. You're not supposed to trick Google.
Does Eliot Spitzer know about this?
LOL. Perhaps in the faith-based world, where "victimize and disenfranchise" translates to something like "prevent us from using government power to force our religious views on everyone else" in real world language...
Yes, "disenfranchise" tends to mean "prevent from using government power". "Power" is used by governments "to force". Religious people have "religious views".
So you are correct. And it seems like we agree on what the "separation of church and state" is used for. I don't agree that it's OK to make religious people second-class citizens.