However, doesn't it seem signifigant that war games are popular?
They have always been popular. War games were popular even before there were computers or even TV-s. Of course it's significant, but what does it signify? At the moment, I have no idea.
...arguably the last war where there was no real ambiguity of who was the good guys and the bad guys.
No real ambiguity? Tell me, were the Russians the good guys or the bad guys?
Because games are very popular, because people spend hours a week playing them, it seems that they should be worthy of examination. It seems that something that people, myself included, spend so much time with them we should stop and look at the signifigance of that. What does it say about us what do these games say about our culture.
That reality sucks and we need means of escaping it?
Games have always been important, it's nothing new. Quite a few books (or chapters of books) have been written on the subject. Probably the most extreme answer to the question about the importance of games and playing was Johan Huizinga's, who said that every aspect of culture has a play component to it. I don't think he was right, though -- if everything is play then there'd be no play at all.
I'd say something more, but due to sleepyness, I'm having troubles with formulating meaningful sentences, so I'll finish for today.
You really should RTFA (F=fine) before starting to lament like that. Jenkins isn't saying that you shouldn't play war games or anything flamebaitish. He just talks about different games about war that have been made recently, and why is there such a public outrage over them. If someone is flamebaiting here, it's simoniker. Unlike in the Slashdot blurb, Jenkins' conclusive paragraph sums the article up very well:
Each game reflects different understandings of this war and its moral consequences. And each explores the potential of digital games as a vehicle for shaping public opinion. Given the divisiveness of current sentiments toward the war and the newness of games as a rhetorical medium, it is hardly surprising that these games offend some and disappoint others. Can you really make a kickass game about what has been a less than kickass war?
It's not only games like Chess. War has always been a kind of game in itself, with its own rules and code of honour. Samurais and the knights in medieval Europe are probably the best known examples of this, but war was a game already in very archaic cultures (read "Homo Ludens" by Johan Huizinga, for example) and, in a way, still is. The code of honour and ideals are still there -- hasn't Jessica Lynch been turned into a mythical hero just the same as Achilles or Cid or "Red Baron" von Richthofen?
I bet that what most of the typical users really want is to get all this crap they have off the desk: the monitor smashed in, the keyboard thrown out of the window and the mouse stuffed up the sysadmin's, because the software side of the interface is non-intuitive and can be frustruating to use.
Congress has spent the past few years cutting taxes. You pay less now than you did before.
They are cutting back taxes, but have abolished any of the existing taxes? I don't know the answer, so this isn't a rhetorical question. I suppose they haven't -- they don't want to lose the grip over what goes on. So, you pay less taxes off something, but the state still knows how much of that something you (and others) have.
I don't know where exactly do you live, but around here, you generally pay more for a faster connection than you do for a slow one. I bet it's the same in the US, so I don't see any need for an extra tax.
Heh. It still sounds kinda religious -- if they know how to get up there, they surely shouldn't have any problems with something as earthly as solving tax disputes, right?
I did get your point. I really did. But I completely managed to miss mine (should have used the preview button and, most importantly, my brains...).
What I was trying to (and completely failed to) say was, that the feelings people had after playing a game and their feelings about their job were two completely different things. The people taking part in the experiment kept logs about the first themselves, they were later asked about the second. Yes, they were happy about playing the game after playing the game, but they weren't asked about their work right then. So, when they were praising their job they were praising their job.
I hope I managed to answer your question this time.
You dont even have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.
How come that rocket scientists are always supposed to know the right answer to everything? Yes, I know, it's just a figure of speech, but why rocket scientists? Why not mathematicians or phycisists? Has it something to do with religion? Ideas, anyone?
Well, I guess it is quite probable that the game affects the emotions someone has about their job if asked right after they've finished playing. But as this experiment lasted a month [*], I don't think that was the case.
[*] This raises another question -- is a month a period long enough to show what effects playing games at work has? As the researchers themselves say, the research is still at a very early stage.
Though Minesweeper can be very hypnotizing, I don't think even Microsoft (with all their money) can make a game that causes an instant feeling of happiness in anyone who plays it...
Even if someone really enjoys his job, he might still play some simple game from time to time -- for the reason that it's a distraction. If you lose your thought at some point, Minesweeper-style mindless clicking really helps to recollect it.
I agree that feeling better about your job may not actually raise your productivity. But if allowing employees play (some) games at work doesn't decrease productivity, it's still good for the employer, as a happy employee is always better than an unhappy one.
Oh, poo. I really shouldn't post when I'm sleepy. For instance, I completely forgot the part where you're supposed to get rid of the "evidence" or those who know that in reality there was no flight to the moon. And so on.
Might not be the best way to actually go to the moon, but it's certainly the cheapest...
0) Announce that you're going to the moon.
1) Build something that looks like a hi-tech lunar module from the outside. Then show it to the press, etc. "Train" the crew.
2) Take a rocket that looks big enough to reach the moon. Send it up (how high you send it, depends on the fuel load. You might want to save on this)
3) Using the latest technology, make short flicks of astronauts jumping on the moon, etc. Show the press the pictures. Everyone will believe it.
4) "Land" the ship in the middle of the pacific, let noone get closer than 500 km to the "touchdown zone."
5) Repeat, if needed.
The mice got their Ph.D's[1] and are not active anymore. They are, however, instructing the schmice[2] that are running the show now (in order to get their degrees).
[1] Actually the intergalactic equivalent of it
[2] Practically indistinguishable from mice, except for the fact that schmice and mice can't crossbreed for some reason.
Noo! It's not that simple at all. In fact, the SCO case is just a tiny piece in the Cosmic Masterplan (which I accidentally had a glimpse of, so I don't expect to live long). You see, one of these lawyers is a hunter and can't go hunting, because he's working hard on the SCO case. Because of this, a rabbit (a brown one) doesn't get shot, an eagle gets to eat this rabbit and will in turn not crash into a butterfly. At a very specific moment, the butterfly will flap its wings and thus cause the storm of the century (which wouldn't happen if the butterfly wouldn't flap its wings at the right moment). The storm will sink a ship, but on the ship, there will be this little kitten who would otherwise conquer the World. But as a result of the Plan, dolphins will rule the World instead (using penguins as a cover, of course). The penguins, sorry, dolphins, won't rule for long, of course, but long enough for... (that's where my reading was interrupted, so I don't know what will happen next)
This, of course, is all just a tiny piece of the Masterplan, but I don't think anyone knows what the Plan in its entirety is about...
Narrator: In the center of the plot is the DRM. The nature of the plot depends on the nature of the DRM. There are different kinds of DRM's, for example:
The benign DRM (sits on a throne, looking very busy managing rights)
The evil DRM (sits on a throne, mimicing shouting "take him away!" all the time)
The crazy DRM (sits on a throne, doing silly faces)
The benign DRM with a physical defect (the same as the first one, only has a stiff leg)
The evil DRM hatching a plan
The crazy DRM hatching an egg
Violence in games is one thing, the frustruation they cause is another. Not understanding what you're supposed to do in a civilization-style game (Pharaoh is a Caesar III clone, so it's quite far from Civ) might be just as frustruating as getting killed all the time in UT (where learning the basics is quite simple even if you've never played it before and don't have a manual). You may fail more, but (this is just my experience) the failures aren't as discouraging and frustruating as in strategy games. So, maybe it's more like comparing lemons with grapefruits (*still trying to prove that they might have known what they were doing*)
If Verisign shows your competitors ads when someone mistypes your domain name it's bad. If Google shows your competitors ads when someone searches for your company's name, it's supposed to be good?
I think you're right, but still you're forgetting something. What was also blown up was the WTC twin towers. You hardly hear about those other buildings that were destroyed, or even the Pentagon (have they rebuilt the part that was damaged?), what everybody talks about is these two towers. Should new buildings be built in their place, or should 'ground zero' (hell, that sounds much worse than 9/11) be turned into a memorial (of what?)?
These buildings had a great value, if not economical (was there really that big a need for office space when they were built? Right now, there certaintly isn't much need for offices, so why build new towers?) then symbolical -- why else bother attacking them? Many have called the WTC towers the symbols of capitalism, or of America(n). The history of the world may not be split into before and after it, but the history of USA is, at least for some time.
Slashdot Mirror
They have always been popular. War games were popular even before there were computers or even TV-s. Of course it's significant, but what does it signify? At the moment, I have no idea.
No real ambiguity? Tell me, were the Russians the good guys or the bad guys?
Because games are very popular, because people spend hours a week playing them, it seems that they should be worthy of examination. It seems that something that people, myself included, spend so much time with them we should stop and look at the signifigance of that. What does it say about us what do these games say about our culture.
That reality sucks and we need means of escaping it?
Games have always been important, it's nothing new. Quite a few books (or chapters of books) have been written on the subject. Probably the most extreme answer to the question about the importance of games and playing was Johan Huizinga's, who said that every aspect of culture has a play component to it. I don't think he was right, though -- if everything is play then there'd be no play at all.
I'd say something more, but due to sleepyness, I'm having troubles with formulating meaningful sentences, so I'll finish for today.
Each game reflects different understandings of this war and its moral consequences. And each explores the potential of digital games as a vehicle for shaping public opinion. Given the divisiveness of current sentiments toward the war and the newness of games as a rhetorical medium, it is hardly surprising that these games offend some and disappoint others. Can you really make a kickass game about what has been a less than kickass war?
It's not only games like Chess. War has always been a kind of game in itself, with its own rules and code of honour. Samurais and the knights in medieval Europe are probably the best known examples of this, but war was a game already in very archaic cultures (read "Homo Ludens" by Johan Huizinga, for example) and, in a way, still is. The code of honour and ideals are still there -- hasn't Jessica Lynch been turned into a mythical hero just the same as Achilles or Cid or "Red Baron" von Richthofen?
If such is the case, the only explanation is, that I'm weird. Not that it's news or anything.
I bet that what most of the typical users really want is to get all this crap they have off the desk: the monitor smashed in, the keyboard thrown out of the window and the mouse stuffed up the sysadmin's, because the software side of the interface is non-intuitive and can be frustruating to use.
They are cutting back taxes, but have abolished any of the existing taxes? I don't know the answer, so this isn't a rhetorical question. I suppose they haven't -- they don't want to lose the grip over what goes on. So, you pay less taxes off something, but the state still knows how much of that something you (and others) have.
Totality should be 01:06 AM to 01:31 AM GMT.
I don't know where exactly do you live, but around here, you generally pay more for a faster connection than you do for a slow one. I bet it's the same in the US, so I don't see any need for an extra tax.
Heh. It still sounds kinda religious -- if they know how to get up there, they surely shouldn't have any problems with something as earthly as solving tax disputes, right?
What I was trying to (and completely failed to) say was, that the feelings people had after playing a game and their feelings about their job were two completely different things. The people taking part in the experiment kept logs about the first themselves, they were later asked about the second. Yes, they were happy about playing the game after playing the game, but they weren't asked about their work right then. So, when they were praising their job they were praising their job.
I hope I managed to answer your question this time.
How come that rocket scientists are always supposed to know the right answer to everything? Yes, I know, it's just a figure of speech, but why rocket scientists? Why not mathematicians or phycisists? Has it something to do with religion? Ideas, anyone?
[*] This raises another question -- is a month a period long enough to show what effects playing games at work has? As the researchers themselves say, the research is still at a very early stage.
But when they have finished playing, do they really walk around gleaming like a Buddhist monk who has just attained enlightenment?
Though Minesweeper can be very hypnotizing, I don't think even Microsoft (with all their money) can make a game that causes an instant feeling of happiness in anyone who plays it...
I agree that feeling better about your job may not actually raise your productivity. But if allowing employees play (some) games at work doesn't decrease productivity, it's still good for the employer, as a happy employee is always better than an unhappy one.
Might not be the best way to actually go to the moon, but it's certainly the cheapest...
0) Announce that you're going to the moon.
1) Build something that looks like a hi-tech lunar module from the outside. Then show it to the press, etc. "Train" the crew.
2) Take a rocket that looks big enough to reach the moon. Send it up (how high you send it, depends on the fuel load. You might want to save on this)
3) Using the latest technology, make short flicks of astronauts jumping on the moon, etc. Show the press the pictures. Everyone will believe it.
4) "Land" the ship in the middle of the pacific, let noone get closer than 500 km to the "touchdown zone."
5) Repeat, if needed.
[1] Actually the intergalactic equivalent of it
[2] Practically indistinguishable from mice, except for the fact that schmice and mice can't crossbreed for some reason.
This, of course, is all just a tiny piece of the Masterplan, but I don't think anyone knows what the Plan in its entirety is about...
The benign DRM (sits on a throne, looking very busy managing rights)
The evil DRM (sits on a throne, mimicing shouting "take him away!" all the time)
The crazy DRM (sits on a throne, doing silly faces)
The benign DRM with a physical defect (the same as the first one, only has a stiff leg)
The evil DRM hatching a plan
The crazy DRM hatching an egg
(after a sketch from Rowan Atkinson Live)
Violence in games is one thing, the frustruation they cause is another. Not understanding what you're supposed to do in a civilization-style game (Pharaoh is a Caesar III clone, so it's quite far from Civ) might be just as frustruating as getting killed all the time in UT (where learning the basics is quite simple even if you've never played it before and don't have a manual). You may fail more, but (this is just my experience) the failures aren't as discouraging and frustruating as in strategy games. So, maybe it's more like comparing lemons with grapefruits (*still trying to prove that they might have known what they were doing*)
Please prove that I'm wrong saying this.
Or maybe they knew exactly what they were doing and were also experimenting with different difficulty levels and input setups...
'Sodipodi' is the Estonian for 'mishmash' or 'hodgepodge' or a very random drawing. Now exactly what part of the name doesn't make sense to you?
These buildings had a great value, if not economical (was there really that big a need for office space when they were built? Right now, there certaintly isn't much need for offices, so why build new towers?) then symbolical -- why else bother attacking them? Many have called the WTC towers the symbols of capitalism, or of America(n). The history of the world may not be split into before and after it, but the history of USA is, at least for some time.