Hmm...Now I'm a bit curious. True, it's played at internet cafes, and what you say is probably true. On the other hand, people can play at home as well (check out the pictures on the internet of the rooms of Lineage addicts who never clean their rooms), so they must have another pricing policy to allow that...Dunno how it works. Anyone have any info?
I understand what you're saying, but you have to keep in mind that plot-oriented or exploration-oriented games are prone to lack of replay value in and of themselves. Thinking back on it, the games that have provided the most replay value for me are strategy games (Civilization, etc.), because the focus is the gameplay itself, not the things you discover through gameplay.
"But, there's lots of interesting statistics to go through. such as "Nearly Twice as Many Adults Have Played Internet Games for More than Eight Consecutive Hours than Teenagers"
That would be because you only get to be a teen for 10 years whereas you get to be an adult from 20-Death. There are WAY more adults than teens in the world. Way more than double. I hate it when they give stats with no context."
Well noted. In fact, you only get to be a teenager for 7 years (13 to 19). With the life expectancy in the US being 77 as of the year 2000, the average person would be a teen for 7 years and an adult for 57 years. Nearly 8 times more adults should have yadda yadda yadda then (ignoring bell curve population figures, for simplicity's sake). However, according to the survey, only slightly more than twice as many have.
Which means, adjusted, that teens are about 4 times more likely than adults to have played internet games for more than 8 consecutive hours.
The ease with which people can be fooled by statistics is a testament to how horrible our educational system is, as well as the culture that rationalizes this kind of stupidity.
...How is that easy to defeat? It's true that idiots scratch up DVDs. The implication, of course, is that Gamecube's small discs only really benefit idiots, because they're the only ones who're stupid enough to scratch up a DVD.
I'm neutral on the subject, but I don't see the obvious angle on the argument. In fact, if there was a weak argument, I'm inclined to think it was the initial argument that smaller discs are better because they don't get scratched as easily, as it has been far from established that scratching happens very much in the first place.
"There's no good reason for making the discs that small? What are you smoking?...they're far more portable..."
Who cares about that if the system they play on isn't portable?
Nintendo does. And since they make the rules, they're the only one that matters.
Ok, I've really tried to wrap my head around this section, but I just don't get it. Being small is an advantage, because it makes discs more portable, but only Nintendo cares that discs are portable...
I can see why this would be beneficial for Nintendo, but when people talk about a good reason for a design decision, they're usually referring to how a design decision benefits the consumer. So...how does portability of media for a non-portable console benefit ME?
And, just FYI, Nintendo doesn't make the rules about what benefits me. If they did, empty GameCube boxes that cost $1,000 would benefit me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty neutral on this whole issue (if there are benefits, I'd be happy to hear about them, if there aren't, I'd be interested to know as well), but this particular exchange just stuck out like a sore thumb.
I suppose technically that's right, in the same way that reading a Stephen King novel is read 10 pages+. In Japan, DVD players were running something like $400 for the cheapest models, with an average price of around $600. The PS2 was nothing compared to that.
I understand that DVD players were cheaper in the States at that time, but for the Japanese market, this was absolutely huge. I know several people with no interest in games who bought a PS2 because it was the cheapest DVD player on the market.
Not a mis-translation, a mis-interpretation. They're overlapping categories. Some people see video games as being primarily for kids, so they specifically mention adults. Some people see modern games as being gorefests for adults, so they specifically mention children. Some people seem video games as being primarily for men, so they mention women. Nobody sees games as being primarily for women, so they omit the redundant mention of men.
Japanese are much bigger on sentence brevity than English-speakers (which makes sense, since words tend to have more syllables, so speaking as precisely as one would in English would take fricking forever).
Hmm...I don't know about Korea, but regarding Japan: They do definitely have a concept of evil, and even phrases like "embodiment of evil". A better statement would be that they don't harp quite as much on those issues in fiction, and in real life they don't assign "evil" to religious concepts like "Satan". Evil is just evil, not the product of an evil god. But that definitely doesn't mean that they don't use the concept of evil itself. If a parent kills their kid for crying, you can bet damn well that Japanese watching the news will say that the person is evil, not just having a "difference of opinion".
And as for the idea of "difference creates evil": I hope you're talking about countries other than Japan, because if that refers in any way to Japan, you're totally off-base. That reminds me of all the Japanese "the nail that sticks out will get hammered down" stereotypical pseudo-sociology that came out when Japan's manufacturing industries were forcing out American companies. Kind of along the lines of "Americans believe in individuality, so if two people ever agree on something, they need to have a gunfight to decide who gets to keep their opinion".
One of the things that bugged me about KOTOR was that there was that the Good/Evil hierarchy clearly placed "Cartoony Good" above "Actual Good" and "Cartoony Evil" above "Actual Evil". One example (which I'm sure I'm remembering wrong, as it's been a while, but which is nevertheless analogous to the kinds of choices in the game) is when you find a stowaway on your ship. If I remember right, you get the choices to kick the kid off the ship (kinda evil), tell the kid you'll try to find her parents, or tell the kid that they can ride with you as long as they want. Here, obviously, trying to find the parents is the most Good choice. If Mother Theresa played KOTOR, she'd want to find the kid's parents. However, you get more light points for picking the "cartoony good" choice of not even trying to help the kid get home, but just basically adopting her. The whole "good/evil" thing kinda soured for me as it all came across as this choice between doing something not all that good but cheesily good for a lot of Light Points, or doing something legitimately good for a few Light Points. The evil side worked the same way.
That said, I really liked the Canderous character, as he started off seeming really evil, but as you talked to him more, you understood his vantage point. It's not like a lot of other games, where you see an evil character's good side, or the evil character becomes less evil, but after a while, Canderous seemed good, in his own way, but in a way which was completely incompatible with the culture of the rest of the world, and therefore evil.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that Canderous and the Mandalorians were a really well-implemented example of really evil characters whose motivations are believable and who, in their own context, are not evil.
I agree with you, but I think you may be mischaracterizing the initial parent. He isn't saying that evil people must be misunderstood or have valid motives, but that they must believe that they are not evil. In that sense, I agree with you, that they don't need to believe that they're not evil, as there are examples of good fantasy, etc. where characters realize they are evil (I'd say Sauron was a better example than Saruman). However, it's like breaking the fourth wall, or making your cowboy dress all in white, or making a joke about being fat to your girlfriend: it's very very hard to pull off well. Most any game/movie/book where evil characters realize that they are evil, or do things because they are evil, come off as horrible horrible cheese.
Let's take two stereotypical examples, and compare the cheese factor:
1) A bad guy takes over a village, and kills a village child "because I'm eeeevil"
2) A bad guy takes over a village, and kills a village child because he gets pissed off that the child talked back to him.
Sure, they're both pretty common / stereotypical, but in the first one, it just comes off as stupid, while in the second one, while the bad guy is definitely undeniably evil, his motive isn't "I'm evil"; from his point of view it was justified because the kid was being disrespectful.
That said, there are very few games that really take the "I'm eeeeevil approach anymore (though there are a depressing number of Hollywood movies that make the bad guys do completely out-of-character bad things just because it's evil), and most take the "bad guys have a warped sense of values, and according to their values, they're the good guys". I personally hated the game, but as far as "evil vs. good", KOTOR comes to mind. The dark Jedi don't do evil stuff because they're evil, they do it because they think the light Jedis are all pansy hippies who spend their life simpering and running away from fights. In their view, they are the right ones, for maximizing their natural advantages. Sure, not a very deep example, but it's the first that comes to mind.
Admittedly, this is all a bit of a tangent, as the article itself isn't talking about "self-consciously evil" vs. "unconsciously evil", but "kind of evil" vs. "not so evil", or "behaviour A" vs. "behaviour B", with neither being evil or good, per se.
Get real. Nobody pirates software (or other media for that matter) because they are trying to make a statement against company/group XYZ -- they do it because they are greedy. Anything else is an absolute lie, it's somebody with a guilty conscience trying to justify their criminal activity. Try to feel noble. You can claim that you're sticking it to Microsoft, but you know that's not the truth.
You are, in fact, wrong.
I purchase a number of games. And not just games -- I have purchased *more expensive equivalents* and simply postponed purchasing a non-game product to avoid purchasing Microsoft products. I use Linux for things that it would be easier to use a pirated copy of Windows for. I use a MacAlly Q-BALL (and waited years to buy one) because the functional alternative was a Microsoft product. I even build systems in a day and age when OEM computers are price-competitive with home-built machines to avoid giving money to Microsoft.
Er, sorry to ask the obvious, but: how is he wrong?? He never said that people don't avoid Microsoft products in order to stick it to the man, he said that pirates' motivation is greed. Your examples are all examples of nonpiracy. I'm sure your case is not unusual: a lot of tech folks (especially Slashdot readers) will invest in different products in order to avoid giving Microsoft money. But I can't think of anyone who pirates software in order to "stick it to Microsoft". Anybody who dislikes Microsoft or MS policies that much is generally the kind of person who wouldn't download a MS product even if it was free and legal, let alone breaking the law in order to get it.
"3. If there's no demo, and you don't trust the developer enough to buy the game, sight-unseen, don't buy it. The developer doesn't deserve your money, but neither do you deserve to own a copy of their game."
I agree with some of your other stuff, but this is the age of try-before-you-buy...If you're smart, you'll make a demo, otherwise you will suffer the wrath of the market.
I think you're missing the fact that you and the parent agree. Companies which don't produce demos will, and should, suffer the wrath of the market. The only difference is that the parent is saying that a company being too dumb to make a demo does not excuse piracy, any more than your neighbor being too dumb to lock their door excuses robbing their house. (Just to clarify: I'm not representing your position with your comment, it's just a general example).
"So, it is alright for a company to abandon their users and sell out to MS."
Is it alright for a company to intentionally avoid its biggest market, missing potential profit, providing smaller bonuses for employees, and enjoying less recognition just so that you can feel loved?
"It is alright for their premiere platform to be the last one they port it to, years later."
Yes. Certainly none of your business how they decide to release their products.
"It is alright for them to make the buyers unable to play with their PC friends who got the game years earlier."
No, but they haven't done that. The PC version didn't come out years ago, it came out months ago, and cross-platform playability is no problem.
"It is alright for the game to run like complete ass showing it was quick port."
Which part? It isn't alright for it to run like ass, but who cares if it was a quick or slow port? But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, no, it's not alright.
"Is that all right?"
Let's see: 3 out of 4, so the answer is: It's 75% alright.
To be fair, my girlfriend drives her mom's SUV (and I have no idea why her mom has an SUV). However, considering the speeds you drive at (5 mph) in heavily populated areas (Shibuya), getting hit by an SUV isn't much more of a big deal than being hit by a compact.
You have to remember that we're talking about Japan, where your entire commute consists of just sitting there, reading a book, or, if you're out of reading materials, slowly going mad.
True, but NEC already has a terrestrial TV phone, which is exactly the same size and weight as a regular phone. The battery is hell when you watch TV, but the idea is you just carry the power plug if you want to watch TV.
I do the same for my regular Sharp phone, as they use the same plug types for each model, and this is my second Sharp. One plug stays at home connected to the cradle, and the other plug is in my backpack.
True, but I think the parent is responding to the general trend in the threads here of talking about the TVness of the phone, as opposed to the satelliteness of the phone. My guess is just that very few Slashdot users know that there is already a TV phone in Japan, and that as such it's the satellite bit that's news, not the TV bit.
Remember we're talking Japan, not America. Very low car to pedestrian ratio, and very low incidence of huge-ass SUVs.
Your point stands, but I doubt this will be as bad as you seem to be inclined to believe. In the US I suspect it would be a nightmare...of steel and blood!
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm...Now I'm a bit curious. True, it's played at internet cafes, and what you say is probably true. On the other hand, people can play at home as well (check out the pictures on the internet of the rooms of Lineage addicts who never clean their rooms), so they must have another pricing policy to allow that...Dunno how it works. Anyone have any info?
Judging from the word on the street, the vast majority.
I understand what you're saying, but you have to keep in mind that plot-oriented or exploration-oriented games are prone to lack of replay value in and of themselves. Thinking back on it, the games that have provided the most replay value for me are strategy games (Civilization, etc.), because the focus is the gameplay itself, not the things you discover through gameplay.
"But, there's lots of interesting statistics to go through. such as "Nearly Twice as Many Adults Have Played Internet Games for More than Eight Consecutive Hours than Teenagers"
That would be because you only get to be a teen for 10 years whereas you get to be an adult from 20-Death. There are WAY more adults than teens in the world. Way more than double. I hate it when they give stats with no context."
Well noted. In fact, you only get to be a teenager for 7 years (13 to 19). With the life expectancy in the US being 77 as of the year 2000, the average person would be a teen for 7 years and an adult for 57 years. Nearly 8 times more adults should have yadda yadda yadda then (ignoring bell curve population figures, for simplicity's sake). However, according to the survey, only slightly more than twice as many have.
Which means, adjusted, that teens are about 4 times more likely than adults to have played internet games for more than 8 consecutive hours.
The ease with which people can be fooled by statistics is a testament to how horrible our educational system is, as well as the culture that rationalizes this kind of stupidity.
...How is that easy to defeat? It's true that idiots scratch up DVDs. The implication, of course, is that Gamecube's small discs only really benefit idiots, because they're the only ones who're stupid enough to scratch up a DVD.
I'm neutral on the subject, but I don't see the obvious angle on the argument. In fact, if there was a weak argument, I'm inclined to think it was the initial argument that smaller discs are better because they don't get scratched as easily, as it has been far from established that scratching happens very much in the first place.
"There's no good reason for making the discs that small? What are you smoking? ...they're far more portable..."
Who cares about that if the system they play on isn't portable?
Nintendo does. And since they make the rules, they're the only one that matters.
Ok, I've really tried to wrap my head around this section, but I just don't get it. Being small is an advantage, because it makes discs more portable, but only Nintendo cares that discs are portable...
I can see why this would be beneficial for Nintendo, but when people talk about a good reason for a design decision, they're usually referring to how a design decision benefits the consumer. So...how does portability of media for a non-portable console benefit ME ?
And, just FYI, Nintendo doesn't make the rules about what benefits me. If they did, empty GameCube boxes that cost $1,000 would benefit me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty neutral on this whole issue (if there are benefits, I'd be happy to hear about them, if there aren't, I'd be interested to know as well), but this particular exchange just stuck out like a sore thumb.
"When the PS2 hit a DVD player was $100+ "
$100+?
I suppose technically that's right, in the same way that reading a Stephen King novel is read 10 pages+. In Japan, DVD players were running something like $400 for the cheapest models, with an average price of around $600. The PS2 was nothing compared to that.
I understand that DVD players were cheaper in the States at that time, but for the Japanese market, this was absolutely huge. I know several people with no interest in games who bought a PS2 because it was the cheapest DVD player on the market.
Not a mis-translation, a mis-interpretation. They're overlapping categories. Some people see video games as being primarily for kids, so they specifically mention adults. Some people see modern games as being gorefests for adults, so they specifically mention children. Some people seem video games as being primarily for men, so they mention women. Nobody sees games as being primarily for women, so they omit the redundant mention of men.
Japanese are much bigger on sentence brevity than English-speakers (which makes sense, since words tend to have more syllables, so speaking as precisely as one would in English would take fricking forever).
BTW, IAAJT (I Am A Japanese Translator)
Hmm...I don't know about Korea, but regarding Japan: They do definitely have a concept of evil, and even phrases like "embodiment of evil". A better statement would be that they don't harp quite as much on those issues in fiction, and in real life they don't assign "evil" to religious concepts like "Satan". Evil is just evil, not the product of an evil god. But that definitely doesn't mean that they don't use the concept of evil itself. If a parent kills their kid for crying, you can bet damn well that Japanese watching the news will say that the person is evil, not just having a "difference of opinion".
And as for the idea of "difference creates evil": I hope you're talking about countries other than Japan, because if that refers in any way to Japan, you're totally off-base. That reminds me of all the Japanese "the nail that sticks out will get hammered down" stereotypical pseudo-sociology that came out when Japan's manufacturing industries were forcing out American companies. Kind of along the lines of "Americans believe in individuality, so if two people ever agree on something, they need to have a gunfight to decide who gets to keep their opinion".
One of the things that bugged me about KOTOR was that there was that the Good/Evil hierarchy clearly placed "Cartoony Good" above "Actual Good" and "Cartoony Evil" above "Actual Evil". One example (which I'm sure I'm remembering wrong, as it's been a while, but which is nevertheless analogous to the kinds of choices in the game) is when you find a stowaway on your ship. If I remember right, you get the choices to kick the kid off the ship (kinda evil), tell the kid you'll try to find her parents, or tell the kid that they can ride with you as long as they want. Here, obviously, trying to find the parents is the most Good choice. If Mother Theresa played KOTOR, she'd want to find the kid's parents. However, you get more light points for picking the "cartoony good" choice of not even trying to help the kid get home, but just basically adopting her. The whole "good/evil" thing kinda soured for me as it all came across as this choice between doing something not all that good but cheesily good for a lot of Light Points, or doing something legitimately good for a few Light Points. The evil side worked the same way.
That said, I really liked the Canderous character, as he started off seeming really evil, but as you talked to him more, you understood his vantage point. It's not like a lot of other games, where you see an evil character's good side, or the evil character becomes less evil, but after a while, Canderous seemed good, in his own way, but in a way which was completely incompatible with the culture of the rest of the world, and therefore evil.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that Canderous and the Mandalorians were a really well-implemented example of really evil characters whose motivations are believable and who, in their own context, are not evil.
I agree with you, but I think you may be mischaracterizing the initial parent. He isn't saying that evil people must be misunderstood or have valid motives, but that they must believe that they are not evil. In that sense, I agree with you, that they don't need to believe that they're not evil, as there are examples of good fantasy, etc. where characters realize they are evil (I'd say Sauron was a better example than Saruman). However, it's like breaking the fourth wall, or making your cowboy dress all in white, or making a joke about being fat to your girlfriend: it's very very hard to pull off well. Most any game/movie/book where evil characters realize that they are evil, or do things because they are evil, come off as horrible horrible cheese.
Let's take two stereotypical examples, and compare the cheese factor:
1) A bad guy takes over a village, and kills a village child "because I'm eeeevil"
2) A bad guy takes over a village, and kills a village child because he gets pissed off that the child talked back to him.
Sure, they're both pretty common / stereotypical, but in the first one, it just comes off as stupid, while in the second one, while the bad guy is definitely undeniably evil, his motive isn't "I'm evil"; from his point of view it was justified because the kid was being disrespectful.
That said, there are very few games that really take the "I'm eeeeevil approach anymore (though there are a depressing number of Hollywood movies that make the bad guys do completely out-of-character bad things just because it's evil), and most take the "bad guys have a warped sense of values, and according to their values, they're the good guys". I personally hated the game, but as far as "evil vs. good", KOTOR comes to mind. The dark Jedi don't do evil stuff because they're evil, they do it because they think the light Jedis are all pansy hippies who spend their life simpering and running away from fights. In their view, they are the right ones, for maximizing their natural advantages. Sure, not a very deep example, but it's the first that comes to mind.
Admittedly, this is all a bit of a tangent, as the article itself isn't talking about "self-consciously evil" vs. "unconsciously evil", but "kind of evil" vs. "not so evil", or "behaviour A" vs. "behaviour B", with neither being evil or good, per se.
No, you aren't the only one.
Or, rather: Robin Williams remade the Absent Minded Professor? It looks like I need to watch more TV, I'm losing touch with pop-culture.
Get real. Nobody pirates software (or other media for that matter) because they are trying to make a statement against company/group XYZ -- they do it because they are greedy. Anything else is an absolute lie, it's somebody with a guilty conscience trying to justify their criminal activity. Try to feel noble. You can claim that you're sticking it to Microsoft, but you know that's not the truth.
You are, in fact, wrong. I purchase a number of games. And not just games -- I have purchased *more expensive equivalents* and simply postponed purchasing a non-game product to avoid purchasing Microsoft products. I use Linux for things that it would be easier to use a pirated copy of Windows for. I use a MacAlly Q-BALL (and waited years to buy one) because the functional alternative was a Microsoft product. I even build systems in a day and age when OEM computers are price-competitive with home-built machines to avoid giving money to Microsoft.
Er, sorry to ask the obvious, but: how is he wrong?? He never said that people don't avoid Microsoft products in order to stick it to the man, he said that pirates' motivation is greed. Your examples are all examples of nonpiracy. I'm sure your case is not unusual: a lot of tech folks (especially Slashdot readers) will invest in different products in order to avoid giving Microsoft money. But I can't think of anyone who pirates software in order to "stick it to Microsoft". Anybody who dislikes Microsoft or MS policies that much is generally the kind of person who wouldn't download a MS product even if it was free and legal, let alone breaking the law in order to get it.
"3. If there's no demo, and you don't trust the developer enough to buy the game, sight-unseen, don't buy it. The developer doesn't deserve your money, but neither do you deserve to own a copy of their game."
I agree with some of your other stuff, but this is the age of try-before-you-buy...If you're smart, you'll make a demo, otherwise you will suffer the wrath of the market.
I think you're missing the fact that you and the parent agree. Companies which don't produce demos will, and should, suffer the wrath of the market. The only difference is that the parent is saying that a company being too dumb to make a demo does not excuse piracy, any more than your neighbor being too dumb to lock their door excuses robbing their house. (Just to clarify: I'm not representing your position with your comment, it's just a general example).
"So, it is alright for a company to abandon their users and sell out to MS."
Is it alright for a company to intentionally avoid its biggest market, missing potential profit, providing smaller bonuses for employees, and enjoying less recognition just so that you can feel loved?
"It is alright for their premiere platform to be the last one they port it to, years later."
Yes. Certainly none of your business how they decide to release their products.
"It is alright for them to make the buyers unable to play with their PC friends who got the game years earlier."
No, but they haven't done that. The PC version didn't come out years ago, it came out months ago, and cross-platform playability is no problem.
"It is alright for the game to run like complete ass showing it was quick port."
Which part? It isn't alright for it to run like ass, but who cares if it was a quick or slow port? But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, no, it's not alright.
"Is that all right?"
Let's see: 3 out of 4, so the answer is: It's 75% alright.
To be fair, my girlfriend drives her mom's SUV (and I have no idea why her mom has an SUV). However, considering the speeds you drive at (5 mph) in heavily populated areas (Shibuya), getting hit by an SUV isn't much more of a big deal than being hit by a compact.
Ok, got it. Cultural gap here. I live in Japan, where cell phone penetration is widespread enough that that kind of situation doesn't really happen.
The sheep issue?
You mean Japanese won't be able to sleep on the trains because they'll be watching TV?
Sorry, I'm being flippant. I realize your post is somehow about conformity, but I just don't get what you're driving at.
One word answer for you:
Trains
You have to remember that we're talking about Japan, where your entire commute consists of just sitting there, reading a book, or, if you're out of reading materials, slowly going mad.
True, but NEC already has a terrestrial TV phone, which is exactly the same size and weight as a regular phone. The battery is hell when you watch TV, but the idea is you just carry the power plug if you want to watch TV.
I do the same for my regular Sharp phone, as they use the same plug types for each model, and this is my second Sharp. One plug stays at home connected to the cradle, and the other plug is in my backpack.
True, but I think the parent is responding to the general trend in the threads here of talking about the TVness of the phone, as opposed to the satelliteness of the phone. My guess is just that very few Slashdot users know that there is already a TV phone in Japan, and that as such it's the satellite bit that's news, not the TV bit.
Remember we're talking Japan, not America. Very low car to pedestrian ratio, and very low incidence of huge-ass SUVs.
Your point stands, but I doubt this will be as bad as you seem to be inclined to believe. In the US I suspect it would be a nightmare...of steel and blood!
No, you can do that already with the NEC V601N. The difference is, the V601N just picks up normal VHF / UHF stations, not satellite.
Holy motherfucking motherfucker!! Ivan Stang AND the Boredoms ?!?! This is my wet dream. I cannot wait until this download finishes!!
Ivan Stang! Fuck, that game is a geek's wet dream! Why, oh why, did they cancel it?!