Now we are getting somewhere. Three posts and we have an equation. Still not causality yet, but now we have the inkling there might be causality. Even if you had all the research linked, you could only say that there is a really good chance that the increase of CO2 is the cause of the climate change.
This is why skeptics are important. They cause others to defend their views more competently. This is not "basic science." These are hardcore climate theories. Someone calls you on what they see as an over-simplification of an argument, and your argument becomes more complex perhaps satisfying both in the process.
As a final note, I will say that scientists need to fear thinking in absolutes. This goes for skeptics as well as the mainstream. When science is based on faith (be it of religion or other theories), you no longer have anything that can truly be called science.
The human body gives off heat. There are more humans than before. Human body heat is causing climate change. Is that causality?
CO2 absorbs energy, and CO2 concentration has increased. Fine, great. Now tell me how much more energy that traps, and tell me if that energy can explain the current 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in world-wide temperatures. Without that, your statement is simple correlation. I'm not even saying that this information doesn't exist, but without it in your argument you are not describing causation.
Your education and fancy pieces of paper do not make you right. I honest feel sorry for the field of Computer Science, and am very glad you didn't get your Ph. D. in Astronomy. You can't do any damage with a Masters in Astronomy.
My undergraduate work in Astronomy boiled down to correcting the sloppy work of another student (who was published in the Astrophysical Journal and became a Fulbright Scholar). He fudged his numbers, did whatever he could to make the data fit, and wrote his senior thesis in a weekend. I decided that the politics of science weren't for me, so after my BS in Astronomy/Astrophysics, I did not pursue graduate work.
Forget correlation. It's basic science. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Absorbing infrared radiation leads to an increased thermal equilibrium. We have increased the CO2 concentration by 100 ppmv. Over the last 800,000 years it has fluctuated between 180 ppmv (ice age) and 280 ppmv. It is now at 380 ppmv. Lest you argue that it could be the oceans releasing CO2 (people actually argue that), levels in the oceans are increasing too.
To show that this is causality, you must also show how much energy this increase in Carbon Dioxide traps and that it is on a large enough scale to explain the increase in heat that we see. You described a correlation.
I'm really tired of back seat scientists. Skepticism is good, and I'd argue that skepticism is even better when everyone seems to follow one view. The skeptics may not be right, but they are necessary to keep everyone honest. If you do not understand that, you have no right to comment.
That "MMO" looks BORING. Like FFXI without the FF name.
Aside from that...
You can split hairs about Little Big Planet, but it is a basic platform style puzzle game. You can control each character co-operatively sure, but that doesn't nearly the standard of innovation you demand of Nintendo.
Unfortunately for the Wii, most developers don't understand the strengths of the Wii Remote yet. Mark my words. Pointing is where it is at.
I could go on and on and on about specific Nintendo innovations, but it will never be enough for the haters, so I will stop here. Look back and see for yourself what Nintendo has done for video games, both good and bad. They have made mistakes. They have flogged a few franchises, but if you look, the net gain is substantial. Very substantial.
Re:News At 11, Industry Insider Hates Nonconformis
on
Spore Dev Down On the Wii
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Have a look at LittleBigPlanet for the PS3, that game looks amazing on a lot of levels and its exactly the game that I would hope Nintendo would do, but they simply don't do innovative stuff any more, instead we get a tennis game in which you can't even control the player, good for capturing the casual gamers, boring for everybody else.
So you are saying that a tennis game where you cannot move the player isn't innovative. Every tennis game I remember playing allowed you to move the player.
You also ignore another game on that very disc. Wii Sports Bowling is the greatest bowling game ever made thanks to Nintendo innovation. Without question. It is not up for argument.
And this is on the disc you get with the damned system.
Sony shows one mildly interesting game, and everyone is ready to jump on their cock. I will go on the record right now, and say that Little Big Planet is nothing more than Mario Vs DK 2: March of the Minis with tarted up graphics. That game supports Wi-Fi and online sharing of user created levels too.
I have yet to see this Sony innovation you speak of.
I'll start by saying that I know you are being sarcastic.
I cannot stand people who use that defense when they are perfectly willing to take government subsidies, tax breaks, corporate bail-outs, and any number of other forms of assistance. If this were a free market, most of the pharmaceutical execs would have been strung out by market forces long ago.
saying "We are completely content with our plan and its outcome," is news. Not "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" news, but for gossipy video game entertainment news, this is gold.
As a long time Nintendo fan, posts like this make me so mother fucking happy. Nintendo received so much bad press they never deserved, and now that Sony is getting the animosity they begged for, the Sony camp is upset.
I have to say that I am eating this with a spoon. It feels like the Islanders won the Stanley Cup. The only thing sweeter than the rise of an underdog is the tears of the fair-weather fans.
Don't worry. If this continues, you'll switch teams and start flogging Sony.
Right now is a ripe time to pick up a 360 however, I'd imagine that has something to do with the stronger-than-PS3 sales.
If the general consensus online is any indication, no time is a ripe time to purchase a 360. I've heard too many stories about people on their 3rd or greater 360.
They don't say much of any value. Hell will freeze over before Nintendo allows itself to be bound by a "videogame standards commission." We wouldn't want such a commission to be formed anyway. Major publishers and developers would only come closer to absolute power in the industry.
Yeah, you're right. RPGs are perfect. They have something for everyone.
RPGs have too much tedium for most players. Leveling up is Boring for most, and often gives little in return to the player.
From the article:
The first horrible thing. Fantasy role-playing games are unique among computer games in one thing: they are fundamentally about starting out weak and learning to be strong. And that learning process generally involves a lot of tedium.
Most RPGs force people to spend time fighting and killing random, relatively weak enemies simply to progress. The battles aren't interesting on a battle to battle basis. They are simply designed to make your quest x hours longer. Battle needs to be more interesting, and rewards need to be immediate. The best RPGs I have played make battle interesting. Grandia for example. I finished it, because I enjoyed playing it.
I played FFXI for a few months. I leveled to 20 and stopped. I leveled myself that high so I could move about in the game more easily. That's it. That is all I got. If I wanted to level anymore, I had to have at least 2 consecutive hours free to find a party of douchebags who expected me to know and care about every little intricacy of the game. This was something I was not willing to offer. I would rather level on my own, but that could not be done.
That is the point. These games could be fixed so easily with thoughtful battle sequences, engaging minigames, and real goal alternatives. If Star Wars Galaxies was not so broken, I might have stuck with it, because I could reasonably mine and manufacture items for sale without camping a mining point for a week. I enjoyed that. I did not enjoy being killed by high powered enemies immediately outside peaceful cities on peaceful planets. No matter what, battle had to be a focus. What about a game with a path that allowed you to be a pro sports player in the world?
So much could be done to engage people, but developers fear the loss of the purists who, frankly, fuck up a good idea for the rest of us.
Well you called the author a n00b. I thought it was open season.
Your thousands upon thousands do not stand up to the millions upon millions that don't give a shit. You give no weight because you disagree, and much like every moron discussion in this godforsaken internet, you feel no reason to temper your own remarks with the possibility that other people think differently.
I find that the most pointless position in any argument is that everything is fine. I find that listening to those who don't like something to be far more enlightening than listening to someone who says nothing bad about it.
Well then UMD is more popular than either of them. You have to remember that Sony does own a lot of film properties, and they will be more willing to spend the money to convert their movies to the format more quickly than studios that have no real stake.
Just because a few people bought BR discs so they had something compelling to play in what would otherwise be a $600 paperweight does not mean much.
You don't understand what the article was getting at. Most people do not invest long periods of time on the internet. The internet is not, generally speaking, where they meet friends.
The author says that online multiplayer is overrated. He does not say that it is worthless. Rather, he makes the case that those who find the most value in it are in the minority.
You talk about MUDs, and I'm sure you would make the case for things like WoW, but the grand majority of gamers do not like these types of games. Online RPGs allow relationships to be made, but if they are not your cup of tea, online gaming is a dark place filled with cheaters and disconnects. I'm good at Mario Kart DS, so I almost never finish a set of four races. I was watching a friend play NFL 2KSomething on XBL. His online opponent unlocked an interesting mini game. Once in the lead he would put the camera at an unplayable angle. My friend would have to set it back, but the the time alloted each player for changing settings would count down to zero. The game was no longer football. It was who could spend the least amount of time fucking or fixing the settings. Excitement!
But, most importantly, he whines about getting beat.
If you think for one moment that differing skill levels is not a problem in online gaming, you are a moron. In real life bowling, people can join leagues for different skill levels, and they are given things like handicaps. There are scratch leagues for the expert, but beginners are given a chance in most leagues. I don't see this much in online competitive games, and there needs to be more of it (especially handicaps) if we expect people to spend the time learning to play.
But if you watched those same commercials, you would know that Apples don't get viruses... ever. And that everything works right out of the box with no setup other than plugging in the cord. And that Windows cannot speak to Japanese made cameras. And that the "iLife" suite does everything you would ever want to do with a computer as well as you want to do it.
GAME OF THE YEAR! Impress your friends! Shoot things in the same way you have for only 300 or so other games! It's like Halo 4 only Halo 4 is in the future! This is the now!
While we are at it, let's give John Carmack another award. INNOVATION!
You forget a few important aspects. The entire field of play must be visible to everyone at all times. Relative distances cannot be so large that you have trouble showing the relationship to other players. Lastly and maybe most importantly, gamers must look impressive not just be impressive.
Imagine a sport where you don't see the skills at work. For instance, an FPS player would need to be visibly distinguishable from a moving turret with auto-aim. Sure his reflexes might be impressive, but the game doesn't represent it in any tangible way. The only clue is the result. We can see Peyton Manning look off a safety to free a receiver, his genius is apparent. If Ovechkin fakes a pass on a 2 on 1 breakaway, we see the 3 inches he moved the hockey stick to convince the defender. I don't know if video games will ever have the level of detail necessary to show that kind of depth, and even if it does, people might not be impressed with the virtues of fine thumb muscle movement.
Spectator sports give the viewer the opportunity to see nearly impossible physical feats, but there are no impossible feats in video gaming if the code is on your side. The great challenge in making video games spectator friendly in my eyes is coding the game to display believable genius.
No no. You don't understand. Games with outdated graphics are hot sellers... NOW. The viability of games with good enough graphics has been proven for at least a decade (Pokemon). Until last console generation (ps2, gc, xbox), however, 3D graphics weren't good enough yet. Now they are. The graphical race is now a side note. It is simply one feature among many.
The point is that these games remain fun without the draw to their graphics. It is time to realize that we are in the computing era of "good enough." Processors were good enough about 5 years ago for most useful tasks. There are exceptions, but those applications that constantly need more power will probably never be completely satisfied.
Once developers realize that they can make a game that has good enough graphics and superior design and sell like gangbusters, gaming will start its renaissance.
Nintendo is thriving today, because they realized that. Sony is in trouble because they don't. The foundation has been laid by the likes of Nintendo, Game Freak, Blizzard, Fraxis, some people at Square and Namco, and Rockstar (though they might be changing), and those who do not see will be left in the digital dust. Sure there will always be a market for the big-budget blockbuster, but even Hollywood is starting to realize that people won't pay for simple shine over substance anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we are getting somewhere. Three posts and we have an equation. Still not causality yet, but now we have the inkling there might be causality. Even if you had all the research linked, you could only say that there is a really good chance that the increase of CO2 is the cause of the climate change.
This is why skeptics are important. They cause others to defend their views more competently. This is not "basic science." These are hardcore climate theories. Someone calls you on what they see as an over-simplification of an argument, and your argument becomes more complex perhaps satisfying both in the process.
As a final note, I will say that scientists need to fear thinking in absolutes. This goes for skeptics as well as the mainstream. When science is based on faith (be it of religion or other theories), you no longer have anything that can truly be called science.
I shouldn't even bother.
The human body gives off heat. There are more humans than before. Human body heat is causing climate change. Is that causality?
CO2 absorbs energy, and CO2 concentration has increased. Fine, great. Now tell me how much more energy that traps, and tell me if that energy can explain the current 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in world-wide temperatures. Without that, your statement is simple correlation. I'm not even saying that this information doesn't exist, but without it in your argument you are not describing causation.
Your education and fancy pieces of paper do not make you right. I honest feel sorry for the field of Computer Science, and am very glad you didn't get your Ph. D. in Astronomy. You can't do any damage with a Masters in Astronomy.
My undergraduate work in Astronomy boiled down to correcting the sloppy work of another student (who was published in the Astrophysical Journal and became a Fulbright Scholar). He fudged his numbers, did whatever he could to make the data fit, and wrote his senior thesis in a weekend. I decided that the politics of science weren't for me, so after my BS in Astronomy/Astrophysics, I did not pursue graduate work.
Forget correlation. It's basic science. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Absorbing infrared radiation leads to an increased thermal equilibrium. We have increased the CO2 concentration by 100 ppmv. Over the last 800,000 years it has fluctuated between 180 ppmv (ice age) and 280 ppmv. It is now at 380 ppmv. Lest you argue that it could be the oceans releasing CO2 (people actually argue that), levels in the oceans are increasing too.
To show that this is causality, you must also show how much energy this increase in Carbon Dioxide traps and that it is on a large enough scale to explain the increase in heat that we see. You described a correlation.
I'm really tired of back seat scientists. Skepticism is good, and I'd argue that skepticism is even better when everyone seems to follow one view. The skeptics may not be right, but they are necessary to keep everyone honest. If you do not understand that, you have no right to comment.
That "MMO" looks BORING. Like FFXI without the FF name.
Aside from that...
You can split hairs about Little Big Planet, but it is a basic platform style puzzle game. You can control each character co-operatively sure, but that doesn't nearly the standard of innovation you demand of Nintendo.
Unfortunately for the Wii, most developers don't understand the strengths of the Wii Remote yet. Mark my words. Pointing is where it is at.
I could go on and on and on about specific Nintendo innovations, but it will never be enough for the haters, so I will stop here. Look back and see for yourself what Nintendo has done for video games, both good and bad. They have made mistakes. They have flogged a few franchises, but if you look, the net gain is substantial. Very substantial.
Have a look at LittleBigPlanet for the PS3, that game looks amazing on a lot of levels and its exactly the game that I would hope Nintendo would do, but they simply don't do innovative stuff any more, instead we get a tennis game in which you can't even control the player, good for capturing the casual gamers, boring for everybody else.
So you are saying that a tennis game where you cannot move the player isn't innovative. Every tennis game I remember playing allowed you to move the player.
You also ignore another game on that very disc. Wii Sports Bowling is the greatest bowling game ever made thanks to Nintendo innovation. Without question. It is not up for argument.
And this is on the disc you get with the damned system.
Sony shows one mildly interesting game, and everyone is ready to jump on their cock. I will go on the record right now, and say that Little Big Planet is nothing more than Mario Vs DK 2: March of the Minis with tarted up graphics. That game supports Wi-Fi and online sharing of user created levels too.
I have yet to see this Sony innovation you speak of.
Self-preservation instinct + knowledge of inevitable death = Belief in afterlife.
We are hardwired to live at all costs. What if we know the effort is futile? How do we stay sane? Religion seems like a coping mechanism to me.
I'll start by saying that I know you are being sarcastic.
I cannot stand people who use that defense when they are perfectly willing to take government subsidies, tax breaks, corporate bail-outs, and any number of other forms of assistance. If this were a free market, most of the pharmaceutical execs would have been strung out by market forces long ago.
saying "We are completely content with our plan and its outcome," is news. Not "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" news, but for gossipy video game entertainment news, this is gold.
As a long time Nintendo fan, posts like this make me so mother fucking happy. Nintendo received so much bad press they never deserved, and now that Sony is getting the animosity they begged for, the Sony camp is upset.
I have to say that I am eating this with a spoon. It feels like the Islanders won the Stanley Cup. The only thing sweeter than the rise of an underdog is the tears of the fair-weather fans.
Don't worry. If this continues, you'll switch teams and start flogging Sony.
Right now is a ripe time to pick up a 360 however, I'd imagine that has something to do with the stronger-than-PS3 sales.
If the general consensus online is any indication, no time is a ripe time to purchase a 360. I've heard too many stories about people on their 3rd or greater 360.
Oblivion is coming to the PSP.
How about this? The last 3 console wars (handheld, PS2 gen, PS1 gen) were all won by the system with inferior graphics.
No, they went deep into the count and waited for a pitch they could hit. That ball may still land over the fence.
They don't say much of any value. Hell will freeze over before Nintendo allows itself to be bound by a "videogame standards commission." We wouldn't want such a commission to be formed anyway. Major publishers and developers would only come closer to absolute power in the industry.
Yeah, you're right. RPGs are perfect. They have something for everyone.
RPGs have too much tedium for most players. Leveling up is Boring for most, and often gives little in return to the player.
From the article:
The first horrible thing. Fantasy role-playing games are unique among computer games in one thing: they are fundamentally about starting out weak and learning to be strong. And that learning process generally involves a lot of tedium.
Most RPGs force people to spend time fighting and killing random, relatively weak enemies simply to progress. The battles aren't interesting on a battle to battle basis. They are simply designed to make your quest x hours longer. Battle needs to be more interesting, and rewards need to be immediate. The best RPGs I have played make battle interesting. Grandia for example. I finished it, because I enjoyed playing it.
I played FFXI for a few months. I leveled to 20 and stopped. I leveled myself that high so I could move about in the game more easily. That's it. That is all I got. If I wanted to level anymore, I had to have at least 2 consecutive hours free to find a party of douchebags who expected me to know and care about every little intricacy of the game. This was something I was not willing to offer. I would rather level on my own, but that could not be done.
That is the point. These games could be fixed so easily with thoughtful battle sequences, engaging minigames, and real goal alternatives. If Star Wars Galaxies was not so broken, I might have stuck with it, because I could reasonably mine and manufacture items for sale without camping a mining point for a week. I enjoyed that. I did not enjoy being killed by high powered enemies immediately outside peaceful cities on peaceful planets. No matter what, battle had to be a focus. What about a game with a path that allowed you to be a pro sports player in the world?
So much could be done to engage people, but developers fear the loss of the purists who, frankly, fuck up a good idea for the rest of us.
Well you called the author a n00b. I thought it was open season.
Your thousands upon thousands do not stand up to the millions upon millions that don't give a shit. You give no weight because you disagree, and much like every moron discussion in this godforsaken internet, you feel no reason to temper your own remarks with the possibility that other people think differently.
I find that the most pointless position in any argument is that everything is fine. I find that listening to those who don't like something to be far more enlightening than listening to someone who says nothing bad about it.
Well then UMD is more popular than either of them. You have to remember that Sony does own a lot of film properties, and they will be more willing to spend the money to convert their movies to the format more quickly than studios that have no real stake.
Just because a few people bought BR discs so they had something compelling to play in what would otherwise be a $600 paperweight does not mean much.
You don't understand what the article was getting at. Most people do not invest long periods of time on the internet. The internet is not, generally speaking, where they meet friends.
The author says that online multiplayer is overrated. He does not say that it is worthless. Rather, he makes the case that those who find the most value in it are in the minority.
You talk about MUDs, and I'm sure you would make the case for things like WoW, but the grand majority of gamers do not like these types of games. Online RPGs allow relationships to be made, but if they are not your cup of tea, online gaming is a dark place filled with cheaters and disconnects. I'm good at Mario Kart DS, so I almost never finish a set of four races. I was watching a friend play NFL 2KSomething on XBL. His online opponent unlocked an interesting mini game. Once in the lead he would put the camera at an unplayable angle. My friend would have to set it back, but the the time alloted each player for changing settings would count down to zero. The game was no longer football. It was who could spend the least amount of time fucking or fixing the settings. Excitement!
But, most importantly, he whines about getting beat.
If you think for one moment that differing skill levels is not a problem in online gaming, you are a moron. In real life bowling, people can join leagues for different skill levels, and they are given things like handicaps. There are scratch leagues for the expert, but beginners are given a chance in most leagues. I don't see this much in online competitive games, and there needs to be more of it (especially handicaps) if we expect people to spend the time learning to play.
But if you watched those same commercials, you would know that Apples don't get viruses... ever. And that everything works right out of the box with no setup other than plugging in the cord. And that Windows cannot speak to Japanese made cameras. And that the "iLife" suite does everything you would ever want to do with a computer as well as you want to do it.
GAME OF THE YEAR! Impress your friends! Shoot things in the same way you have for only 300 or so other games! It's like Halo 4 only Halo 4 is in the future! This is the now!
While we are at it, let's give John Carmack another award. INNOVATION!
You forget a few important aspects. The entire field of play must be visible to everyone at all times. Relative distances cannot be so large that you have trouble showing the relationship to other players. Lastly and maybe most importantly, gamers must look impressive not just be impressive.
Imagine a sport where you don't see the skills at work. For instance, an FPS player would need to be visibly distinguishable from a moving turret with auto-aim. Sure his reflexes might be impressive, but the game doesn't represent it in any tangible way. The only clue is the result. We can see Peyton Manning look off a safety to free a receiver, his genius is apparent. If Ovechkin fakes a pass on a 2 on 1 breakaway, we see the 3 inches he moved the hockey stick to convince the defender. I don't know if video games will ever have the level of detail necessary to show that kind of depth, and even if it does, people might not be impressed with the virtues of fine thumb muscle movement.
Spectator sports give the viewer the opportunity to see nearly impossible physical feats, but there are no impossible feats in video gaming if the code is on your side. The great challenge in making video games spectator friendly in my eyes is coding the game to display believable genius.
No no. You don't understand. Games with outdated graphics are hot sellers... NOW. The viability of games with good enough graphics has been proven for at least a decade (Pokemon). Until last console generation (ps2, gc, xbox), however, 3D graphics weren't good enough yet. Now they are. The graphical race is now a side note. It is simply one feature among many.
The point is that these games remain fun without the draw to their graphics. It is time to realize that we are in the computing era of "good enough." Processors were good enough about 5 years ago for most useful tasks. There are exceptions, but those applications that constantly need more power will probably never be completely satisfied.
Once developers realize that they can make a game that has good enough graphics and superior design and sell like gangbusters, gaming will start its renaissance.
Nintendo is thriving today, because they realized that. Sony is in trouble because they don't. The foundation has been laid by the likes of Nintendo, Game Freak, Blizzard, Fraxis, some people at Square and Namco, and Rockstar (though they might be changing), and those who do not see will be left in the digital dust. Sure there will always be a market for the big-budget blockbuster, but even Hollywood is starting to realize that people won't pay for simple shine over substance anymore.
Maybe Aardman can do Cinderella 4: Citizens on Patrol.
If I get you correctly, you are saying they should wait until the seventh anniversary of 7/7 to release the book. Marketing Genius!