Sex, nudity, violence, etc is part of the human experience. If you don't want your children to experience that, it is your job to protect them. If you don't want to experience, then don't look at or purchase the art you find offensive. But don't put guidelines on what I can or can not see. That is far more offensive than anything you can put in a video game. You are limiting free speech and to that I respectfully say fuck you.
Why is it when people state that it is a well known fact, it never is well known or factual?
We don't see art that involves painting and sculpting naked people/people having sex. I am sure it is being done, but it isn't something that we display to everyone. And these are mediums that are extremely mature. Quite frankly, we live in a society that is overly puritanical. It is more of a cultural issue that is against nudity and sex that makes people scream not art than the medium. Our culture accepts violence to a certain degree, but at a certain point it becomes gratuitous and "not art" again.
I have faith that when I turn the key, my car will start. That's believing something with no proof.
Wow, you fail science. I know that when I turn the key to my car, it will start. It has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with understanding how a car works. If I ever turn the key and it doesn't start, I know (not believe) that there is something wrong (i.e. it is out of gas, needs a jump start, etc.) and I will fix it so that it will start again. Faith has nothing to do with cars starting.
I think you grouping agnostics in to a large group, mis-defining what a lot of them believe, and then telling them how they are arrogant when it isn't what they believe. I don't know what group is most arrogant, but I know you are coming off as one arrogant dickwad right now. From most of the agnostics I know, they just claim that they don't really know what religion is right (or if any are). They believe that there is probably something out there that put this in motion, but they don't really know what it is. God, energy, something...the odds of us existing at all and having this conversation really blows the mind. How the heck could all this start? Science tries to explain it. But where did all the stuff that created the Big Bang come from. I don't even think that they would say this happened on purpose, though they hope there is some reason for our existence.
But go ahead and classify and dismiss people in to groups. That seems to be a popular fad these days.
*clap clap clap* Very moving...really...*cough* Anyways, I am sure the NSA isn't as you describe them. They shouldn't be breaking the laws...but I am sure they just see themselves as trying to protect American lives. They aren't scared/cowards/bed wetters...they are people just like you and me. They are misguided, sure, but calling them a bunch of names and telling them to move out of the country is a bit stupid.
Oh, and Iranians want freedom too...way to fail paying attention to current events.
Sounds like a great idea from someone divorced from reality. This might work for people with 3 tech friends. The rest of us have normal friends that don't care about this sort of thing so we would prefer that the government would obey the laws instead of making us jump through hoops.
Yeah, if this was something created by Nintendo you know everyone would be saying how wonderful it was. For some reason people get stupid about consoles and companies. They all want your money. If they do something good, praise them, if they do something bad, call them out. But hating on Natal just because it is made by MS is pretty retarded no matter how you look at it.
That's fine for some people, but I'd rather go out and play soccer for fun. Playing games is how I relax. I'm not saying you are wrong to enjoy it. I am saying it is wrong to tell others to feel differently about something just because you like it.
And for the record, Slashdot is much more pro anything Nintendo than it is "moving is hard". I am glad to know that other people feel it is cool but mostly gimmicky. But if you enjoy it, more power to you.
Your PvP complaint isn't even true in WoW. If you raid in PvE you can get really great gear...for PvE. Take that gear and PvP with it, and you will be destroyed. If you PvP a lot, you get honor points/arena points which you can exchange for better gear that is good for PvP and horrible for PvE. So you can take whatever route you want. Yeah, if you want to experience the raid content that takes hours to get through, then you need to have the time to do that. But just because some people can't participate in it doesn't mean they shouldn't create it.
If you take away the grinding for slightly better statistics then it won't be an MMO. I know you may think that is stupid, but what else is a MMO supposed to do? You remove that parts of the game and you just have a regular RPG. If you make it a multiplayer RPG, why bother going in to hard dungeons with your friends? The challenge of it? Then once you beat it, you are done. Might as well just be playing single player games.
You might not find MMOs fun, but millions do. It's like you are complaining that Vegas came up with a new slot machine but it still requires you to out money in, watch something spin that you have no control over, and then you either win money or your money is consumed. So let's remove grinding for levels...you are max level. Let's remove grinding for gear, everyone has the best stuff. Now, what do you do? You kill each other. Oh wait, you just created a Star Wars version of Team Fortress 2. The things that people complain about MMOs for, are the things that make them MMO and make the people who like MMOs to keep playing them. So yes, it is going to be another cookie-cutter-grinding-game that you will find boring. Just like a new FPS will be another game where you get different types of weapons to shoot people.
No, you are an idiot. Like every word in any language, it evolves over time. RPGs do not have to give you choices that change the game. JRPGs generally put you along rails from beginning to end (like final fantasy) where western RPGs tend to be more open and free (like oblivion).
Really, to be an RPG all you need is to have a level based system where each level increases your statistics. You don't have to avoid twitch skills. Games like the Tales series allow you to jump around/move/swing your weapon in real time.
RPGs have been evolving for awhile now picking up and combining things from other genres. FPS's these days are taking from RPGs giving you experience that allow you to evolve your character. Genres are all blurring together so nothing is as clear cut. But your rigid definition of RPGs doesn't even include games from the past that are very obviously regarded as RPGs.
How would that even be possible? There has to be some sort of filtering or the data center would be overwhelmed. Your link is not to an article, but a blog that quotes an article. I don't know who actually wrote it, but this may be a case of someone who doesn't understand tech doing tech writing.
Um, yes, there are things that treat Parkinson's and the summary is a bit misleading. Probably not intentionally because it is easier to chalk it up to stupidity than being maliciously misleading.
What about them? I have no idea if it will work fine or not with people with disabilities, but let's pretend it doesn't. So what? Should it not be made because some tiny subset of the population can't play it?
Yes, more people have Wii's...but it doesn't sell games very well (at least non-Nintendo ones). And if you want to develop a cutting edge game, the Wii is the weakest of the three consoles. This is fact. There is nothing wrong with having more fun with the games on the cheaper/weaker console. So if a developer chooses to not develop their game for the Wii because of that, why should it matter?
Apparently people are as defensive about their Wii's as they are their wee's. Nintendo has sold more consoles this time...relax, stating facts shouldn't make you freak out anymore.
That video actually doesn't really prove or disprove anything. It states that people looking at the screen always look like they are looking at you and people not looking at the screen never look like they are looking at you.
The head is oriented in the correct position. It is facing her. The eyes may not be done right because (like the video says, they should always be looking at the screen). The programming would just need to be tweaked to always have the kids eyes oriented towards the screen. The current programming (if it is being used) is just orienting the head.
I am not saying it wasn't faked. Just that your video really proves nothing either way.
I guess I don't understand why this would be fun for you. You are like a stalker. You follow around some poor girl who doesn't want you around her all for what? All you are doing is wasting your own time and making other people unhappy. It is fun for you. But what does that say about you? Were you abused as a child? Do you not have social skills and lack friends? I both think you are pathetic and feel sorry for you. You must have some real mental problems.
So your definition of carebear are people who PvP against people with a similar level that has specific objectives? Ahh, you fit the stereotype Eve player. A jerk that thinks that they are intellectually and skillfully superior to other because they are able to put up with the worst user interface to an MMO ever. The game is simple except for the layers of menus that have been created by people banned from working at Apple. It's sad, there are certainly nice people in Eve. But the vocal majority of Eve players are like this. Anti-social little pricks that will ask for your stuff if you criticize anything about the game.
maybe that says something about how PvP is broken in WoW.
Umm, maybe you shouldn't form an opinion on WoW's PvP based on a couple of posts on an online forum. If you don't like non-consensual PvP, then there are servers designed just for you in WoW.
Yeah, you will get killed leveling on a PvP server. Is it a big deal? Never has been for me. I can see how it bothers some, but like I said, there are other options.
If all your friends are griefers, then I suggest you get better friends.
And it is kind of stupid for you to criticize a game you don't play. Also, it generally takes less than a minute to run back to your corpse so you are exaggerating in your example. It really isn't that big of a deal.
But Slashdot does have certain obvious bias. He didn't say everyone believed it. But you can say that Slashdot, in general, is pro-Linux/Apple/Nintendo site and an anti-MS/Sony/DRM etc site. Yeah, you can still get modded up if you write out a well thought out post, but in general, you know what the majority of the +5 posts are going to be. To deny this is to be new to the site or just not be paying attention.
Usually on these types of articles the +5 posts are the ones saying that it should be up to the parents to protect kids from adult material. But when the topic is rape (as opposed to killing people) suddenly the majority of the posts are talking about how this is a good thing. So Slashdot is being hypocritical since it is reversing its normal stance since the topic is different. Are certain individuals staying consistent? Of course. But there are a lot of people on here being complete hypocrites.
I just I don't see how it is hard to understand how people can't tell that Slashdot has certain biases. I think it is valid to point out when people are being hypocritical.
Not that I would ever care to play this game...but are you listening to yourself? What you are saying is that no adult content should ever be generated because kids can access it. Or at the very least is you are saying that you are the moral authority on where the line in the sand should be drawn.
You may think you believe in libertarian values...but you don't. You are just like all the other politicians trying to make laws about what games can or can not be played.
We are all animals raised by animals. While this stuff isn't for me, I have no problem with adults doing whatever they hell they want as long as they don't harm others. I think hunting is worse than this (which I am guessing you are fine with). In that "game" you only succeed when you take the life of an actual animal for no other reason than you get off killing stuff.
For the DS, you can just download them for free. I generally speak out against piracy, but to the publisher, they see as much money either way.
But what the GP said has truth. The used market is going to die. Yeah, Steam is just for PC. But the future is digital distribution (even for consoles...handhelds or otherwise). What about people without the Internet? Well, they will always have hoop and a stick.
You have an over-priced mp3 player that could get scratched up. Yet you complain about a device that is a more sophisticated piece of hardware at a cheaper price being too expensive and unwilling to protect it like you would your iPod. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Maybe they do understand why Nintendo continues to dominate that market. So they target a different market with a different type of gaming portable. Yeah, their target audience is smaller given the price tag, but as long as they are making a profit, who the hell cares? Only fan boys care if something outsells the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Sex, nudity, violence, etc is part of the human experience. If you don't want your children to experience that, it is your job to protect them. If you don't want to experience, then don't look at or purchase the art you find offensive. But don't put guidelines on what I can or can not see. That is far more offensive than anything you can put in a video game. You are limiting free speech and to that I respectfully say fuck you.
Why is it when people state that it is a well known fact, it never is well known or factual?
We don't see art that involves painting and sculpting naked people/people having sex. I am sure it is being done, but it isn't something that we display to everyone. And these are mediums that are extremely mature. Quite frankly, we live in a society that is overly puritanical. It is more of a cultural issue that is against nudity and sex that makes people scream not art than the medium. Our culture accepts violence to a certain degree, but at a certain point it becomes gratuitous and "not art" again.
I have faith that when I turn the key, my car will start. That's believing something with no proof.
Wow, you fail science. I know that when I turn the key to my car, it will start. It has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with understanding how a car works. If I ever turn the key and it doesn't start, I know (not believe) that there is something wrong (i.e. it is out of gas, needs a jump start, etc.) and I will fix it so that it will start again. Faith has nothing to do with cars starting.
I think you grouping agnostics in to a large group, mis-defining what a lot of them believe, and then telling them how they are arrogant when it isn't what they believe. I don't know what group is most arrogant, but I know you are coming off as one arrogant dickwad right now. From most of the agnostics I know, they just claim that they don't really know what religion is right (or if any are). They believe that there is probably something out there that put this in motion, but they don't really know what it is. God, energy, something...the odds of us existing at all and having this conversation really blows the mind. How the heck could all this start? Science tries to explain it. But where did all the stuff that created the Big Bang come from. I don't even think that they would say this happened on purpose, though they hope there is some reason for our existence.
But go ahead and classify and dismiss people in to groups. That seems to be a popular fad these days.
*clap clap clap* Very moving...really...*cough* Anyways, I am sure the NSA isn't as you describe them. They shouldn't be breaking the laws...but I am sure they just see themselves as trying to protect American lives. They aren't scared/cowards/bed wetters...they are people just like you and me. They are misguided, sure, but calling them a bunch of names and telling them to move out of the country is a bit stupid.
Oh, and Iranians want freedom too...way to fail paying attention to current events.
Sounds like a great idea from someone divorced from reality. This might work for people with 3 tech friends. The rest of us have normal friends that don't care about this sort of thing so we would prefer that the government would obey the laws instead of making us jump through hoops.
Yeah, if this was something created by Nintendo you know everyone would be saying how wonderful it was. For some reason people get stupid about consoles and companies. They all want your money. If they do something good, praise them, if they do something bad, call them out. But hating on Natal just because it is made by MS is pretty retarded no matter how you look at it.
That's fine for some people, but I'd rather go out and play soccer for fun. Playing games is how I relax. I'm not saying you are wrong to enjoy it. I am saying it is wrong to tell others to feel differently about something just because you like it.
And for the record, Slashdot is much more pro anything Nintendo than it is "moving is hard". I am glad to know that other people feel it is cool but mostly gimmicky. But if you enjoy it, more power to you.
And why couldn't their be an alternative control scheme with Natal that would take in to account someone with a missing limb?
Your PvP complaint isn't even true in WoW. If you raid in PvE you can get really great gear...for PvE. Take that gear and PvP with it, and you will be destroyed. If you PvP a lot, you get honor points/arena points which you can exchange for better gear that is good for PvP and horrible for PvE. So you can take whatever route you want. Yeah, if you want to experience the raid content that takes hours to get through, then you need to have the time to do that. But just because some people can't participate in it doesn't mean they shouldn't create it.
If you take away the grinding for slightly better statistics then it won't be an MMO. I know you may think that is stupid, but what else is a MMO supposed to do? You remove that parts of the game and you just have a regular RPG. If you make it a multiplayer RPG, why bother going in to hard dungeons with your friends? The challenge of it? Then once you beat it, you are done. Might as well just be playing single player games.
You might not find MMOs fun, but millions do. It's like you are complaining that Vegas came up with a new slot machine but it still requires you to out money in, watch something spin that you have no control over, and then you either win money or your money is consumed. So let's remove grinding for levels...you are max level. Let's remove grinding for gear, everyone has the best stuff. Now, what do you do? You kill each other. Oh wait, you just created a Star Wars version of Team Fortress 2. The things that people complain about MMOs for, are the things that make them MMO and make the people who like MMOs to keep playing them. So yes, it is going to be another cookie-cutter-grinding-game that you will find boring. Just like a new FPS will be another game where you get different types of weapons to shoot people.
No, you are an idiot. Like every word in any language, it evolves over time. RPGs do not have to give you choices that change the game. JRPGs generally put you along rails from beginning to end (like final fantasy) where western RPGs tend to be more open and free (like oblivion).
Really, to be an RPG all you need is to have a level based system where each level increases your statistics. You don't have to avoid twitch skills. Games like the Tales series allow you to jump around/move/swing your weapon in real time.
RPGs have been evolving for awhile now picking up and combining things from other genres. FPS's these days are taking from RPGs giving you experience that allow you to evolve your character. Genres are all blurring together so nothing is as clear cut. But your rigid definition of RPGs doesn't even include games from the past that are very obviously regarded as RPGs.
How would that even be possible? There has to be some sort of filtering or the data center would be overwhelmed. Your link is not to an article, but a blog that quotes an article. I don't know who actually wrote it, but this may be a case of someone who doesn't understand tech doing tech writing.
Um, yes, there are things that treat Parkinson's and the summary is a bit misleading. Probably not intentionally because it is easier to chalk it up to stupidity than being maliciously misleading.
What about them? I have no idea if it will work fine or not with people with disabilities, but let's pretend it doesn't. So what? Should it not be made because some tiny subset of the population can't play it?
Nintendo sells Nintendo games well. Third party, not so much. So why develop for something with a low attach rate for anything but Nintendo games?
Yes, more people have Wii's...but it doesn't sell games very well (at least non-Nintendo ones). And if you want to develop a cutting edge game, the Wii is the weakest of the three consoles. This is fact. There is nothing wrong with having more fun with the games on the cheaper/weaker console. So if a developer chooses to not develop their game for the Wii because of that, why should it matter?
Apparently people are as defensive about their Wii's as they are their wee's. Nintendo has sold more consoles this time...relax, stating facts shouldn't make you freak out anymore.
That video actually doesn't really prove or disprove anything. It states that people looking at the screen always look like they are looking at you and people not looking at the screen never look like they are looking at you.
The head is oriented in the correct position. It is facing her. The eyes may not be done right because (like the video says, they should always be looking at the screen). The programming would just need to be tweaked to always have the kids eyes oriented towards the screen. The current programming (if it is being used) is just orienting the head.
I am not saying it wasn't faked. Just that your video really proves nothing either way.
Sure, if you ignore the game cube...
I guess I don't understand why this would be fun for you. You are like a stalker. You follow around some poor girl who doesn't want you around her all for what? All you are doing is wasting your own time and making other people unhappy. It is fun for you. But what does that say about you? Were you abused as a child? Do you not have social skills and lack friends? I both think you are pathetic and feel sorry for you. You must have some real mental problems.
So your definition of carebear are people who PvP against people with a similar level that has specific objectives? Ahh, you fit the stereotype Eve player. A jerk that thinks that they are intellectually and skillfully superior to other because they are able to put up with the worst user interface to an MMO ever. The game is simple except for the layers of menus that have been created by people banned from working at Apple. It's sad, there are certainly nice people in Eve. But the vocal majority of Eve players are like this. Anti-social little pricks that will ask for your stuff if you criticize anything about the game.
maybe that says something about how PvP is broken in WoW.
Umm, maybe you shouldn't form an opinion on WoW's PvP based on a couple of posts on an online forum. If you don't like non-consensual PvP, then there are servers designed just for you in WoW.
Yeah, you will get killed leveling on a PvP server. Is it a big deal? Never has been for me. I can see how it bothers some, but like I said, there are other options.
If all your friends are griefers, then I suggest you get better friends.
And it is kind of stupid for you to criticize a game you don't play. Also, it generally takes less than a minute to run back to your corpse so you are exaggerating in your example. It really isn't that big of a deal.
But Slashdot does have certain obvious bias. He didn't say everyone believed it. But you can say that Slashdot, in general, is pro-Linux/Apple/Nintendo site and an anti-MS/Sony/DRM etc site. Yeah, you can still get modded up if you write out a well thought out post, but in general, you know what the majority of the +5 posts are going to be. To deny this is to be new to the site or just not be paying attention.
Usually on these types of articles the +5 posts are the ones saying that it should be up to the parents to protect kids from adult material. But when the topic is rape (as opposed to killing people) suddenly the majority of the posts are talking about how this is a good thing. So Slashdot is being hypocritical since it is reversing its normal stance since the topic is different. Are certain individuals staying consistent? Of course. But there are a lot of people on here being complete hypocrites.
I just I don't see how it is hard to understand how people can't tell that Slashdot has certain biases. I think it is valid to point out when people are being hypocritical.
Not that I would ever care to play this game...but are you listening to yourself? What you are saying is that no adult content should ever be generated because kids can access it. Or at the very least is you are saying that you are the moral authority on where the line in the sand should be drawn.
You may think you believe in libertarian values...but you don't. You are just like all the other politicians trying to make laws about what games can or can not be played.
We are all animals raised by animals. While this stuff isn't for me, I have no problem with adults doing whatever they hell they want as long as they don't harm others. I think hunting is worse than this (which I am guessing you are fine with). In that "game" you only succeed when you take the life of an actual animal for no other reason than you get off killing stuff.
For the DS, you can just download them for free. I generally speak out against piracy, but to the publisher, they see as much money either way.
But what the GP said has truth. The used market is going to die. Yeah, Steam is just for PC. But the future is digital distribution (even for consoles...handhelds or otherwise). What about people without the Internet? Well, they will always have hoop and a stick.
You have an over-priced mp3 player that could get scratched up. Yet you complain about a device that is a more sophisticated piece of hardware at a cheaper price being too expensive and unwilling to protect it like you would your iPod. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Maybe they do understand why Nintendo continues to dominate that market. So they target a different market with a different type of gaming portable. Yeah, their target audience is smaller given the price tag, but as long as they are making a profit, who the hell cares? Only fan boys care if something outsells the other.