Casual players - those that cannot (for example because of work) or will not (because gaming is not the most important thing on their lifes) dedicate a significant part of their time to gaming - will NEVER be able to outcompete type b) players. They simply don't have the time for it
I play pool now and again. It is unfair that I can't compete with people who play it for several hours every day? Should the pockets be made 12" across to level the playing field?
This is because most people reach a point of their lifes after which they don't need to prove themselfs to others (in a game, of all things) in order to feel good about themselfs. For such persons, being successful and aknowledged as such by others still feels good but is not NEEDED - they don't have the drive to waste countless hours doing something repetitive to go from 7th to 6th in some ladder or other inside a game
Some people like to compete and succeed. Perhaps you weren't aware, but competition is a natural human instict, and is very healthy. I don't understand at all people who don't like competition. It reflects the real world, as we don't like in a communist dystopia where no-one can be any better or more successful than anyone else.
In most MMORPGs (WoW is a good example here), a slight difference of avatar levels translates into an enormous game-mechanics-generated benefict to the player with the highest level avatar
That's more an issue of game balance than a difference in abilities between characters. Why should someone putting time into a game not be able to improve their character? Part of the whole enjoyment of such games is the gradual increase in power, strength, skills, weapons etc. If you stayed exactly the same no matter what happened, there wouldn't be much achievement.
It is a very common event that some player with higher levels and/or beter equipment will enter an area filled with lower-level players of the other faction and activelly go after and kill any players they found from the other faction, even though, game wise they get no rewards for it.
Killing enemies is part of the game. If you're an enemy of someone, why should they spare you? Because it hurts your feelings? Many games are set up in some sort of 'war' scenario. I'm sure that if in WWII a Russian tank found a lone German soldier, the tank wouldn't spare him just because the German was less capable. You know, some of us actually/enjoy/ the excitement of playing a game where other people can kill you, even when you don't want it? There isn't much adrenaline in playing a game where you can be 100% safe all the time.
Another common sight is higher level players killing any lower level player from the other faction that simply crosses their path. See my coment above on maturity for possible explanations.
Maturity? Get down off your high horse, I used to play a MMORPG where killing other players was pretty much the whole point, and it was populated largely by people in their late 20s/30s, most people were pretty mature. But don't let facts get in the way of making yourself feel superior to people who beat you at computer games.
Then the headline would be 'French Parliament Fights Microsoft DRM'.
You have to take into account the Slashdot spin. I wonder how they came to the decision of whether to support Apple or oppose DRM/monopolism? The Slashbots' heads would be spinning if the editor hadn't been kind enough to give them their opinion.
by nameless, faceless people who live behind a wall of form letters,
You expect the moderators to show the players their faces and real names?
canned answers
You expect them to come up with unique solutions to every one of the thousands of people whining about something?
and "we don't have to explain ourselves to you, citizen!" attitudes.
They don't. If you don't like it, don't play the game. Why should they waste time explaining to some lamer why he can't call himself 'MrBigCock' when there are another thousand people waiting to whine about how their class isn't as overpowered as it used to be, and therefore has been 'nerfed'?
The acting is inevitably better than anything you'll find on the silver screen, and quite often the story is so engrossing that even without the shiny special effects of the silver screen you still get pulled in to the story.
I don't agree with that. By and large, acting in theatres is just ham. It's awful. The stories aren't that good either as they're restricted by the limitations of the medium.
There are very few good theatre actors. The ones that are any good soon realise they could make a thousand times as much money doing films instead.
I dare you to find someone who doesn't recognize the opening to Beethoven's 5th symphony, or the 4th movement of his 9th symphony. How about the Habanera from Carmen? Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor? People may not know them by name, but they will recognize thim if they hear them.
Only because they're played often on TV and in films. Most people even if they recognise the tune won't be able to tell you who wrote it or what movement/symphony is. I for one don't know what the 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony is, even if I'd recognise it if I heard it.
What have we created recently that will be remembered in 400 years? Who knows, but it will probably be what we least expect. Bach's compositions were unknown until long after his death...
That was before the era of films, TV and Internet.
Of course, by your failed attempt at reasoning, stealing cars from "spoilt Western" middle class people is also acceptable.
Why? No-one is stealing anything from anyone in this case. The rules of World of Warcraft are not laws, no matter how many of its hardcore addicts think it's real.
These "spoilt geeks", who are for the most part NOT the children of millionaires and oil tycoons, paid money for that game. They don't necessarily have much money themselves.
Come off it, compared to the typical Chineseman, even the poorest American is loaded. I reckon that most WoW players are in the top 1% of world wealth. They probably have houses, cars, electricity, the lot.
First, Google employees have made out like bandits from their stock options.
Exactly. Google doesn't have to even pay their workers, just hand out pieces of paper that don't cost them anything. Of course not to mention the tax benefits...
It's harder to get in the door there than any company in Silicon Valley.
You'd think then maybe they could be a bit more selective, and coule hire people who could actually get a simple web service to a full release in less than five years?
Mark my words, Google is one giant pyramid scheme. The founders at the top, then the early investors, and the losers (every pyramid scheme has losers), will be the people who buy the stock, or get paid in options, just before the whole thing comes crashing down.
I thought that walking-stick shaking, moral guardians didn't watch TV anyway. Wouldn't you rather be at church or whipping yourself with a cane as punishment for impure thoughts? Maybe you could go for a ride on your penny farthing?
My guess is that releasing movies that don't suck would increase movie attendance.
There have been some good films released over the last year, the same as any other year. There have been crap films released since the history of films. Your theory is therefore flawed.
You say you want cheaper admission, and yet you say you want less adverts. As adverts subsidise the entrance fee, your request is completely contradictory. How is this modded insightful? Getting rid of the adverts and cutting the cost of food would INCREASE the ticket prices. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Films ARE affordable for the middle class. That's a section of society that drops thousands on TVs, tens of thousands on cars, and tens of thousands on luxury holidays. I think they can spare a few quid for to watch a film.
Watching a film is still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment. Films are no better or worse than there ever have been.
You know that many of Google's stockholders are their employees? When Google plays games like this, they're fucking over their own workers. They already pay them below the going rate, the options are one method to get people to work for them.
The whole point of backlit displays is that you have light
The point is that looking at a bright screen when the room is dark fucks your eyes up. Your pupils are open because it's dark, but then you've got the glare of the screen tearing into your retina.
On the contrary, I think that adverts look shit, even if the film is actually pretty good. I can't stand the typical film trailer, with some gravely voiced American mouthing off a load of cliches with quick-cut clips of explosions, shootings etc. "X is in theatres from the etc. etc. etc. rated etc."
No, the biggest problem with Hollywood is greed. Between then and the theater chains, the cost of a movie is absurd. $7.50 per person + $10 worth of refreshments comes out to a $25 date.
Forgoe the refreshments and it's $15. Seriously, people moan all the time about prices of drinks and food at the cinema, why don't you just not bother? The food's of very low quality, and if you can't go for two hours without eating or drinking then you must weight 400lbs.
Btw, you say Hollywood greed, Hollywood don't set the food prices.
The only real solution for Hollywood is this: use no-name actors and actresses more,
That will mean less people going to see the films, as people often see films just because a big-name actor's in it.
spend less time and money on special effects
Films looking worse will make more people see them?
and search far and wide for new talent to increase the diversity of your writer culture
There are already thousands of people who think they can be writers, the talent pool is flooded with algae. The problem is most people who think they can write, can't. There aren't many decent writers out there. Most people who can write end up writing books, hence the large number of book to film translations.
If you don't, you will eventually fade into obsolescence.
Also, Hollywood doesn't want to pay for writing. Disney, for example, timed their version of Peter Pan so that it wouldn't come out until the story passed into the public domain.
Surely that's what anyone would do? No point paying money for nothing.
Anyway, Peter Pan isn't in public domain, so your point is moot.
Most of the best films made are not taken from things gone into public domain, they're either original plots or from books which are not public domain. Also there are as many things going into public domain as there ever have been. People talk about Steamboat Willy, but even if that did become public domain, if they did use it to make a film, wouldn't that just be another remake, the very thing you're complaining about?
Your post is a logical fallacy. You decry Hollywood having no new ideas, and then saying that it's because they're not allowed to use public domain old ideas.
Your post is just an attempt to play to the crowd by subtly inserting an anti-copyright message so you can get a few free points from the general Slashdot anti-copyright sentiment.
You've also praised manga/anime to squeeze a few mod points from anime/manga fans, even though it has nothing to do with the article.
Technology-wise, the only really geeky thing I want is a smarter cat door (Yes, I know about Flo Control, but I'd settle for "after dark, opens from the inside only")
Slashdot Mirror
You have to agree though that the headline is biased?
Casual players - those that cannot (for example because of work) or will not (because gaming is not the most important thing on their lifes) dedicate a significant part of their time to gaming - will NEVER be able to outcompete type b) players. They simply don't have the time for it
/enjoy/ the excitement of playing a game where other people can kill you, even when you don't want it? There isn't much adrenaline in playing a game where you can be 100% safe all the time.
I play pool now and again. It is unfair that I can't compete with people who play it for several hours every day? Should the pockets be made 12" across to level the playing field?
This is because most people reach a point of their lifes after which they don't need to prove themselfs to others (in a game, of all things) in order to feel good about themselfs. For such persons, being successful and aknowledged as such by others still feels good but is not NEEDED - they don't have the drive to waste countless hours doing something repetitive to go from 7th to 6th in some ladder or other inside a game
Some people like to compete and succeed. Perhaps you weren't aware, but competition is a natural human instict, and is very healthy. I don't understand at all people who don't like competition. It reflects the real world, as we don't like in a communist dystopia where no-one can be any better or more successful than anyone else.
In most MMORPGs (WoW is a good example here), a slight difference of avatar levels translates into an enormous game-mechanics-generated benefict to the player with the highest level avatar
That's more an issue of game balance than a difference in abilities between characters. Why should someone putting time into a game not be able to improve their character? Part of the whole enjoyment of such games is the gradual increase in power, strength, skills, weapons etc. If you stayed exactly the same no matter what happened, there wouldn't be much achievement.
It is a very common event that some player with higher levels and/or beter equipment will enter an area filled with lower-level players of the other faction and activelly go after and kill any players they found from the other faction, even though, game wise they get no rewards for it.
Killing enemies is part of the game. If you're an enemy of someone, why should they spare you? Because it hurts your feelings? Many games are set up in some sort of 'war' scenario. I'm sure that if in WWII a Russian tank found a lone German soldier, the tank wouldn't spare him just because the German was less capable. You know, some of us actually
Another common sight is higher level players killing any lower level player from the other faction that simply crosses their path. See my coment above on maturity for possible explanations.
Maturity? Get down off your high horse, I used to play a MMORPG where killing other players was pretty much the whole point, and it was populated largely by people in their late 20s/30s, most people were pretty mature. But don't let facts get in the way of making yourself feel superior to people who beat you at computer games.
Then the headline would be 'French Parliament Fights Microsoft DRM'.
You have to take into account the Slashdot spin. I wonder how they came to the decision of whether to support Apple or oppose DRM/monopolism? The Slashbots' heads would be spinning if the editor hadn't been kind enough to give them their opinion.
That's a bit odd, considering the main character DIED at the end of the book. What exactly was the sequel about?
by nameless, faceless people who live behind a wall of form letters,
You expect the moderators to show the players their faces and real names?
canned answers
You expect them to come up with unique solutions to every one of the thousands of people whining about something?
and "we don't have to explain ourselves to you, citizen!" attitudes.
They don't. If you don't like it, don't play the game. Why should they waste time explaining to some lamer why he can't call himself 'MrBigCock' when there are another thousand people waiting to whine about how their class isn't as overpowered as it used to be, and therefore has been 'nerfed'?
The acting is inevitably better than anything you'll find on the silver screen, and quite often the story is so engrossing that even without the shiny special effects of the silver screen you still get pulled in to the story.
I don't agree with that. By and large, acting in theatres is just ham. It's awful. The stories aren't that good either as they're restricted by the limitations of the medium.
There are very few good theatre actors. The ones that are any good soon realise they could make a thousand times as much money doing films instead.
I dare you to find someone who doesn't recognize the opening to Beethoven's 5th symphony, or the 4th movement of his 9th symphony. How about the Habanera from Carmen? Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor? People may not know them by name, but they will recognize thim if they hear them.
Only because they're played often on TV and in films. Most people even if they recognise the tune won't be able to tell you who wrote it or what movement/symphony is. I for one don't know what the 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony is, even if I'd recognise it if I heard it.
What have we created recently that will be remembered in 400 years? Who knows, but it will probably be what we least expect. Bach's compositions were unknown until long after his death...
That was before the era of films, TV and Internet.
I've read Don Quixote, and that incident never actually happened.
Of course, by your failed attempt at reasoning, stealing cars from "spoilt Western" middle class people is also acceptable.
Why? No-one is stealing anything from anyone in this case. The rules of World of Warcraft are not laws, no matter how many of its hardcore addicts think it's real.
These "spoilt geeks", who are for the most part NOT the children of millionaires and oil tycoons, paid money for that game. They don't necessarily have much money themselves.
Come off it, compared to the typical Chineseman, even the poorest American is loaded. I reckon that most WoW players are in the top 1% of world wealth. They probably have houses, cars, electricity, the lot.
It's empowering because gives them jobs, and therefore allows them to support a family.
I'm sure they're gutted that the thing that puts food on the table ruins a computer game for some spoilt Western geek...
First, Google employees have made out like bandits from their stock options.
Exactly. Google doesn't have to even pay their workers, just hand out pieces of paper that don't cost them anything. Of course not to mention the tax benefits...
It's harder to get in the door there than any company in Silicon Valley.
You'd think then maybe they could be a bit more selective, and coule hire people who could actually get a simple web service to a full release in less than five years?
Mark my words, Google is one giant pyramid scheme. The founders at the top, then the early investors, and the losers (every pyramid scheme has losers), will be the people who buy the stock, or get paid in options, just before the whole thing comes crashing down.
I thought that walking-stick shaking, moral guardians didn't watch TV anyway. Wouldn't you rather be at church or whipping yourself with a cane as punishment for impure thoughts? Maybe you could go for a ride on your penny farthing?
My guess is that releasing movies that don't suck would increase movie attendance.
There have been some good films released over the last year, the same as any other year. There have been crap films released since the history of films. Your theory is therefore flawed.
You say you want cheaper admission, and yet you say you want less adverts. As adverts subsidise the entrance fee, your request is completely contradictory. How is this modded insightful? Getting rid of the adverts and cutting the cost of food would INCREASE the ticket prices. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Films ARE affordable for the middle class. That's a section of society that drops thousands on TVs, tens of thousands on cars, and tens of thousands on luxury holidays. I think they can spare a few quid for to watch a film.
Watching a film is still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment. Films are no better or worse than there ever have been.
You know that many of Google's stockholders are their employees? When Google plays games like this, they're fucking over their own workers. They already pay them below the going rate, the options are one method to get people to work for them.
So much for 'do no evil'...
The whole point of backlit displays is that you have light
The point is that looking at a bright screen when the room is dark fucks your eyes up. Your pupils are open because it's dark, but then you've got the glare of the screen tearing into your retina.
What's reasonable about cameras in the cinema? Seems to be where all those dodgy DVDs come from that people try to sell at work.
On the contrary, I think that adverts look shit, even if the film is actually pretty good. I can't stand the typical film trailer, with some gravely voiced American mouthing off a load of cliches with quick-cut clips of explosions, shootings etc. "X is in theatres from the etc. etc. etc. rated etc."
No, the biggest problem with Hollywood is greed. Between then and the theater chains, the cost of a movie is absurd. $7.50 per person + $10 worth of refreshments comes out to a $25 date.
Forgoe the refreshments and it's $15. Seriously, people moan all the time about prices of drinks and food at the cinema, why don't you just not bother? The food's of very low quality, and if you can't go for two hours without eating or drinking then you must weight 400lbs.
Btw, you say Hollywood greed, Hollywood don't set the food prices.
The only real solution for Hollywood is this: use no-name actors and actresses more,
That will mean less people going to see the films, as people often see films just because a big-name actor's in it.
spend less time and money on special effects
Films looking worse will make more people see them?
and search far and wide for new talent to increase the diversity of your writer culture
There are already thousands of people who think they can be writers, the talent pool is flooded with algae. The problem is most people who think they can write, can't. There aren't many decent writers out there. Most people who can write end up writing books, hence the large number of book to film translations.
If you don't, you will eventually fade into obsolescence.
Films will never be obsolete.
You wouldn't have to simulate every inch, just the bits that are on screen at one time.
It would be very easy to CGI a ringworld.
Also, Hollywood doesn't want to pay for writing. Disney, for example, timed their version of Peter Pan so that it wouldn't come out until the story passed into the public domain.
Surely that's what anyone would do? No point paying money for nothing.
Anyway, Peter Pan isn't in public domain, so your point is moot.
Most of the best films made are not taken from things gone into public domain, they're either original plots or from books which are not public domain. Also there are as many things going into public domain as there ever have been. People talk about Steamboat Willy, but even if that did become public domain, if they did use it to make a film, wouldn't that just be another remake, the very thing you're complaining about?
Your post is a logical fallacy. You decry Hollywood having no new ideas, and then saying that it's because they're not allowed to use public domain old ideas.
Your post is just an attempt to play to the crowd by subtly inserting an anti-copyright message so you can get a few free points from the general Slashdot anti-copyright sentiment.
You've also praised manga/anime to squeeze a few mod points from anime/manga fans, even though it has nothing to do with the article.
I salute your mastery of karma-whoring.
You had it easy. Back in my day, we didn't have computers at all, we had to break into peoples' houses instead and steal their TVs.
Have you ever considered that he's not a 'serious audiophile'?
Technology-wise, the only really geeky thing I want is a smarter cat door (Yes, I know about Flo Control, but I'd settle for "after dark, opens from the inside only")
Then how does your cat get in?