The point that you seem to miss is that it's all relative.
What defines this "busywork" that so infuriates you? How is a "trash" monster different from a worthwhile monster? Simple - it's worthwhile if you, the gamer and consumer who plunked down the change to pay for the experience, felt it was worthwhile. And you're so burned out on RPGs at this point that you seem to feel that almost none of them are.
If you ask 99% of the females on the planet, the whole concept of computer games is a vast waste of time. It's not "real", they'd say. You gain nothing real by playing them. It's all a black hole into which you dump your time and money. Go study - now that's a grind that's worth your time
But since most folks can't study every waking moment without going insane, some wonderful person invented games. Back in the day, we played them with pencils and paper, but the concept was much the same. You started at level 1, and worked your way up. There was always some kid who wanted to just start out at level 25. But he missed the entire point - we had a whole summer to kill, and needed to pace ourselves. Besides, the feeling of satisfaction gained from achieving each milestone was half the fun. If you start out "uber", you don't get that.
The fact is, games in general are pastimes. That means they pass the time. And for most RPG gamers, the escalating sense of power gained from these games is worthwhile. Because they judge it to be so, and for no other reason.
My advice to you (and no, you didn't explicitly ask for it, but your irate article can only be viewed as a cry for help) is to stop playing RPGs for a while. Perhaps a little sunshine is in order? Spring will be upon us in no time. I recommend that you find a young lady, and attempt to woo her. If you're married, then you can still woo. Trust me, she'll love it. If you like dudes, then go woo a dude. The rewards are similar.
What's that you say? You don't want to be a 'n00b' at wooing? You'd rather start off at the top, wooing super-models? That just isn't how life works, but that's actually a feature, not a bug! Any success you achieve will be all the more sweet, because you started as a n00b!
Whoever modded this post down is a dumbass, because this a good post. I had the same problem with my PS2 - the DVD drive just quit reading the discs. And that happened to several friends of mine as well. An unscientifically small sample, to be sure, but it doesn't seem to be an issue with the Xbox.
So yeah, I agree with the poster - many of those cheap new PS2s that were bought recently were the second one purchased by that particular household, because the first one broke.
To me, one of the few remaining reasons to go to a movie theater is the fact that they have a much bigger screen than I have at home, capable of showing more detail. This results in a much more satisfying experience - if you're talking about a special effects spectacular, like the latest Star Wars movie.
But for the "smaller" movie, the character-driven drama, there's very little motivation for me, and I suspect many others, to fight a Saturday night crowed, pay 10 dollars to get in, and another 10 for popcorn and a drink, when I know that in six months I can pay that same 20 dollars to own the DVD, which I can watch in the comfort or my own hobbit-hole.
But while my local Walmart or Blockbuster will stock a decent selection of DVDs, they don't have the shelf space to have a truly comprehensive library (how many Bergman films do they have at your local DVD outlet? One or two, if you're lucky). Even Bit torrent isn't a great solution for this problem, since by it's nature, popular torrents are fast, and unpopular ones are unreliable at best. It's not impossible to find independent movies on BT, but it's sure easier to find mainstream ones.
What I would love to see is an iTunes-type site geared towards indy features. The films should be sold at a price that is commensurate with the budget of the film. If it costs me 10 dollars to see a picture made for 100 million, then it seems logical that a film produced for 100 thousand ought to cost me 10 cents to view. In this manner, the indies could find a real market.
Plus, there's another recent phenomenon that's relevant here. Lots of the best work, in terms of a complex, high-quality script, is being done on Cable. Shows like "Deadwood" or "Rome" are far more entertaining to me than most movies, because a much richer story can be told in 12 hours than can in 2. Independent content producers should latch on to this "long form" story-telling approach. I dream of the day that I can purchase 12 hour-long episodes of a well-written and inexpensively produced independent drama at a reasonable price - something along the lines of a dollar an episode, or less. Obviously one probably couldn't expect the type of lavish production values seen on "Rome" for that price, but I think that quality acting and writing should be feasible. Before there was TV or movies, people used to product these things called "plays" - sort of a TV show without the cameras. So I'm pretty sure that quality entertainment can be created and sold inexpensively.
So why isn't someone doing that? Or are they? Point me to any relevant websites, please.
I think you've made my point for me. Driving a real car is dangerous. A car is a deadly weapon in the wrong hands, especially when racing and/or driving fast. Playing a racing game is about as safe as life gets. Pretty large difference, wouldn't you say? Besides, do you have a Ferrari? I don't, so a game is a good substitute.
But, I consider a game to be a poor substitute for a real guitar. There's no danger to playing a guitar. There's not much cost. The weather doesn't need to be good, and you don't need other people to be around. So to me, and it's just one person's opinion, the game is a poor substitute.
And I am not telling anyone to stop doing anything. I'm just giving my opinion, which is sorta what these forums are for. If GH works for you, then by all means... carry on.
Wow, STFU... touche. I have no answer for the brilliance of that remark. You have beaten me, sir.
But, I do stand by my original remark that "if you spent the exact same amount of time that you put into playing GH into playing a real guitar, you would have a vastly more genuine and rewarding experience". Notice I did not say "in the same amount of time, you could play the actual song just like Eddie Van Halen". There's a pretty big difference between the two, and that difference seems to have sailed right over your head.
It's just my opinion. Unbunch your panties. It really seems like you have an inferiority complex over that fact that you like to play with a toy guitar. And you shouldn't. It just a game, as you say.
I consider that to be another bad example. It might be snowing outside, or pouring rain, and so skateboarding just isn't feasible. Or you might just have an aversion to broken bones. Skateboarding presents a very real risk of injury. You might have to travel a while to get to a place where you could skate. Not everyone has access to a giant half pipe. Those are all good reasons why the simulation would be preferable.
But guitar playing can always be done alone, in the same exact room where you play your console games. It's done with the same fingers. And you almost never break your neck while doing it.
My entire point is that I consider (and it's just one dude's opinion) actual guitar playing to be a much more worthwhile activity than Guitar Hero, given that the barriers to doing the real thing are so very minimal compared to the game.
I think that the big factor preventing all of the "guitar heros" of the world from picking up an actual guitar is fear. What if I suck at it? What if people laugh at me? You already know that you're decent enough at video games, so playing GH just seems safe and easy. And it is.
I'm cool with that. More power to you. Maybe the game will wet your appetite for the real deal, and make you wonder if those same fingers that can punch buttons so dexterously can also pluck strings.
My attitude is that if a girl wants to get busy with you, that's a groupie. I don't mean it in a derogatory sense. It just means that your mad guitar playing skills had their desired effect. And what a sweet sweet effect it is.
A couple of other hobbies that I've noticed seem to have this effect:
- Sports
- Riding a motorcycle
And a couple of hobbies that seem to repel girls:
-LARP
-bad breath
-Guitar Hero
Ok, I'm kidding on that last one. I'm sure that you could probably get some girls to play GH with you. Not all girls hate video games these days, and that's cool.
But there are great reasons to play a guitar that have nothing to do with sex. The feeling of satisfaction that you get from doing something creative cannot be simulated. You must actually do it. I love video games, and I enjoy simulations. But the real thing is sometimes better!
Real football is not within my reach. Real football teams have 100 people on them, plus helmets, uniforms, and a large field. And joining the Marines in no way is similar to an FPS - an you know that. So your examples really suck.
On the other hand, a decent used guitar costs only a little more than Guitar hero. You can do it alone. And unlike football or shooting people, there is no significant risk of injury.
Look, I'm not saying you're a bad person for enjoying Guitar Hero. I'm not saying that you should be beaten to death with your controller. I'm only saying that if you spent the exact same amount of time that you put into playing GH into playing a real guitar, you would have a vastly more genuine and rewarding experience. No, you aren't able to play instantly. But you would be able to play in no time at all. It doesn't take years, it takes most people months to become proficient enough to play a simple tune.
And whereas GH limits you in the songs that you can play, a real guitar allows you to play any song that uses our even-tempered 12 note scale (that's a lot of songs). Or, you could even make up your own!
I'm sure it will. It will also simulate groupies, then a venereal disease. Then you can simulate a heroine addiction, and finally your own untimely death in a hotel room.
I beg of you, friends - play a real guitar! Have a real life! Simulations are great fun for things that aren't feasible to really do, like racing a Ferrari, or shooting a few dozen cops, but playing a guitar is well within your reach, and the rewards of actually doing the real thing are immeasurable. You can get an actual groupie - so much better than a pixelated babe! Trust me on this one!
So people shouldn't get mad at you for detaining them because you are "only following orders"? That makes it ok? Not in my book it don't.
If customers are regularly getting angry at you for following your store's policies, then that's a pretty good indication that your store's policies are overly invasive. If you find that the customers are your job are often mad at you, then I think you should go find a new job. It's not like there's a huge shortage of low wage retail work these days.
The United States Constitution guarantees us the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. I don't see any reason why a private corporate entity should have more invasive rights than the government - none at all. If you've got tape of me putting something in my pockets and trying to leave the store with it, then great, slap the cuffs on and call the cops.
If you don't, you better keep your grubby paws off me.
Shawn
The thing that I can't understand is method of execution. One of the possible reasons cited for Litvinenko's murder is that he was speaking out on the murder of one of Putin's other critics, journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
When she was killed, she was shot in the head with a Makarov pistol, which was then dropped next to her. Now, my extensive knowledge of espionage, gained by watching many hours of '24', tells me that this is how a pro commits a political hit.
But to kill Litvinenko with an extremely had to get radioactive isotope means that the list of suspects is darn short.
Is it possible that Litvinenko obtained the stuff himself, through the type of black market contacts that one would assume a former KGB agent has, and kill himself with it, just to give Putin a black eye? It's a somewhat nutty theory, but this is a nutty story.
Can anyone else come up with a reason why this rather unusual method was employed?
Shawn
The guy was ex-KGB. I think he could buy pretty much anything if he made a few phone calls.
The thing that's so weird about this is, why kill the guy in this way? As you said, it's not easy to get your hands on this stuff, so that narrows down the list of subjects considerably. Why not just a double tap with a Makarov to the head, like when they did that journalist a couple weeks ago?
Poster's theory is the first answer to that question that actually makes sense to me. Of course, it's just a theory...
Rhombic called me an idiot. I didn't insult him. If Cindy Sheehan were here and she called me an asshole I'd say I deserved it for insulting her first.
Haha, so your name calling is ok because you do it yourself as well? Well, I guess that lets you off the hook for malice, somewhat. But I still think that mature political discourse is free from that sort of thing.
I don't like Sheehan because she's an attention whore. She's done nothing but dishonor the memory of her son to make herself a political celebrity.
Oh geez, there you go right back to the name calling. When you call her an "attention whore" you imply that her celebrity has no purpose, no cause. Yes, she has become a celebrity, but she has also gained attention for the peace movement. It's just not accurate to say that "she's done nothing but dishonor the memory of her son". She's raised awareness about the fact that a lot of people in this country and all over the world are not happy about our invasion of Iraq. The mainstream media in the US was so busy being a cheerleader for the military that they overlooked the other side of the issue. By giving the media a personality to focus on, and a dramatic personal tale of loss, much more press coverage was gained for the side of peace. So how is that "nothing"?
Even if the very worst case scenario about Sheehan is true, and she's only in it to gain personal fame, she's still a far better person than Bush, whose actions have resulted in thousands of deaths. Why are you not angry at him? Why pick on a mother who has lost her son?
I see you can't help but resort to name calling. Pretty mature.
It's hypocritical of you to say that after refering to Sheehan as an "asshat" and a "loon". Name calling doesn't become more mature because the person being insulted isn't present.
The fact that your comments on Sheehan are so venomous shows me that you don't have a rational basis for disliking her, but an emotional one.
If the "bickering partisans" are the problem, then isn't the solution to raise the level of political discourse, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks? What point is served by going after Sheehan like that, when by your own admission you were poorly informed regarding the incident?
I've discovered that various people I run into during the course of my day play WoW, but it's impossible for me to "hang out" with them in a virtual way because they are on different servers. Even if I start a new character on my friend's server, I can't run with him, because I'll be a rank noob while he's got 3 epics already.
So the analogy isn't perfect, as many other replies have already said. BUT, I could easily see groups of people who work at the same company gaming together on a regular basis. And if one of those folks happened to be your boss, that would be a major advantage you would have over your non-gamer coworkers. So everyone who is spitting up on themselves about how imperfect this analogy is should probably chill out, and go find out what server their boss is on.
I'm not sure really how much further they can go with the same idea over and over.
I guess it's fair to say that the PSP version amounts to watering down, because it was sort of a "lite" version. But I don't think anyone was expecting them to beat their old games on a portable device. That's really an apples and oranges comparison. The innovation is clearly going to come on the new generation of home consoles, or on PCs.
And the ways that they can expand the franchise are pretty obvious. Some of them amount to expansions of features they already have, and a couple of new directions are pretty obvious.
As new consoles become available, the whole game world gets bigger. Maps are larger, there can be more cars, more missions, and more complex interaction with NPCs. If that isn't exciting to you, then you didn't like GTA in the first place.
That goes for your character as well as the game world. They just started to add RPG elements in SA, and that can all be expanded. More skills to upgrade, more gear to use, more outfits to wear. Maybe in the new versions, you don't always have to be the same character as everyone else, but instead get to make a really unique character.
And you'll need a unique character to distinguish yourself from other people when you play online someday. I think the really exciting direction that GTA is sure to go eventually is to allow you to play with groups of people. A massive persistent world done in the GTA style is one thing that would tear me away from Worlds of Warcraft. Maybe the idea of millions of gamers paying 15 bucks a month would be enough to get them to make a PC only GTA game. Or maybe they could make it work for people on consoles too.
So I think you're a bit early in pronouncing the franchise played out. They've always done a great job of pushing console hardware to it's limits, and as the hardware improves, those limits will expand.
The Net Avenger saves the day again! Except that your rant of justice was directed at a harmless joke... oops.
I'm on the side of tolerance too, but by going off half-cocked like this, you're not opening anyone's mind. I think you need to ask yourself what your real movtivation was for posting this. Were you trying to make the world a better place, or were you venting some of your own personal rage?
I'm far from perfect myself, and I've posted my share of angry tirades in my day as well. But I never managed to convince anyone that way. That kind of tone just convinces the bigots of the world that they are right. And when you're so eager to let them have it that you don't even bother to take the time to be sure you comprehend the true intent of the person you're talking to, you really make the progressive cause look bad.
I'm sure you're a great guy, and I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I'm just suggesting that you would further our cause more by using somewhat different tactics.
Seriously, if you want a GOOD analogy, it would be more like me saying "you want a drink? great, kitchen's over there, go grab a beer".
I still don't think that's a good analogy. In the case of the beer, someone had to go get it, or else no one could enjoy it. To get the utility from the item, someone had to do some work. But my whole gosh darn point, and I apologize if I'm not doing a good job of expressing it, is that a rebate adds nothing to the product. It enriches mankind in no way. Like so much of what people end up doing all day, it serves no real point, other than to make sure that half of the people don't get the price they saw in big bold letters in the ad.
So at your parties, do you offer the drinks with numerous byzantine qualifications? Or do you simply offer the drink? Because to carry your analogy to it's logical conclusion, to simply offer the drink would be more like an ordinary sale - I'll sell you a product at a somewhat lower price than usual, without any fine print. My entire point, which you seem to have missed, is that this is not what a rebate is.
If I attended a party at your house, and you offered me a drink on the condition that I jumped through hoops A, B, C and D, I'd surely refuse. I expect that some guests would jump through the hoops, then accept the drink, in order to throw it back in your face. I guess you could call that behavior rude, but I think that a certain amount of rudeness in response to rudeness is a forgiveable transgression.
What I'm trying to say is, rebates are evil, in my humble opinion, because they amount to meaningless hoop-jumping. They serve no productive purpose. If these firms were really so un-evil, they would simply offer a lower price.
What really puzzles me is, what sort of person leaps to the defense of corporate busywork? Then I noticed your screen name. If I'm interpreting it correctly, you're claiming to be, or at least expressing admiration for, a person in the Canadian military who operates a machine gun. Correct me if I'm wrong, I only know what I learned when conducting a search on the term. But if that is indeed what you mean, then I guess I have an answer to the question I just posed.
I agree with everything you said, but I think there is an important difference. With a conventional coupon, the comsumer can be quite certain before hand which camp he belongs to, and what price he will pay. But with a rebate, the whole point is that many people will delude themselves into thinking that they will jump through the hoops and get the money, when in fact they will not put in the time and effort.
So no falsehood is told to the consumer by the firms selling the product, but the firms count on a lie that the consumer tells himself. It's not illegal, but it's evil in my book.
It seems that a huge portion of business today is based on the concept of telling the literal truth, and counting on the consumer to form a false impression. It's easy to think of it as a "stupid tax", and tell yourself that only morons fall for the advertising hype. And yet I'd be willing to bet that almost every person on slashdot has failed to fill out a rebate form or two at some point, or in some other way fallen for this particular brand of BS.
And it's tough to do anything about it, since the whole point of the deception is that no one ever lied to you. No laws were broken. They counted on you, the consumer, to be stupid, or lazy, or naive, or that you would just let your hope for a better life cloud your reason.
Someday, this mountain of bullshit has to come crashing down on us.
Don't even try to bring Uncle Tom into this, the situations are totally unrelated.
Who are you supposed to be, the head admin of the Great Firewall of Slashdot? Luckily for me, I live in a free country, and can "try" to make such metaphors.
And I think it's a fair analogy. In the book of the same name, and in colloquial useage, the phrase Uncle Tom denotes someone who benefits by aiding in the oppression of his own kind. My point was that any person of Chinese descent who works for Google must at least ask himself if he is such a person, and in a larger sense, any human being who works for Yahoo, Microsoft, or Google must ask the same question.
If you want to tell me that the Chinese people prefer to be oppressed, then I would say that it is their choice, if they had democraticly chosen the leaders who enacted the censorship laws. But they didn't. They didn't seem to get any say in the matter.
since you clearly aren't Chinese, you shouldn't comment about what a Chinese person would think
I only said how I imagine I would feel, if I were in that situation. I never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself.
But in the interest of world peace, I will rephrase my comments, since I have offended you. I will avoid imagining myself as a Chinese person, by restating the case as follows. Suppose that the US was the country where the government murdered hundreds (or perhaps thousands, depending who one asks) of dissident students, and where online information about that massacre was heavily censored. If I, an American, worked for a Chinese company that was abiding by my government's policy of censorship, if I personally was helping to ensure that my countrymen were unable to learn the truth about the incident, and because of that work was able to enjoy a life of wealth, I would hate myself. I would be so filled with self-loathing that I would be quite unable to view my own image in the mirror.
This is a complex issue, and I don't claim to know the best way to encourage China to become a more open and free society. Heck, I don't even know how to encourage my own country to become more free, what with Dubya playing dictator and the so-called opposition party acting like lap dogs.
But the one thing I can say for sure in all this is that if I was a Chinese-American or a Chinese national who worked for Google, or Yahoo, or MS, I'd sure be feeling like an Uncle Tom right about now. Or is that an Uncle Wang? I'm not sure. But knowing that I was helping restrict the information access of some of my distant relatives, I'd sure feel like crapola.
But really, aren't all men supposed to be brothers? Aren't we all related, at some distant point in the far past? So to me, anyone who works for Google or one of the other companies helping to build the "Great Firewall" ought to be taking a hard look in the mirror and asking themselves... am I an Uncle Wang? Am I doing what I can to help my fellow man, or am I profiting from their oppression?
And the fact that Bill Gates says Google's actions are a good thing sure would not make me feel one iota better....
Noscript plugin for Firefox is what helped me to kill flash, and am I ever thankful for it. It lets you choose which sites can run javascript or flash, and makes browsing a lot faster and less annoying because you get to skip so many ads. I never minded the old school static banner ad too much, but as they've gotten animated and noisier, I got more motivated to find a way to rid myself of them.
Sparkle... yeah sounds great. Thanks for another innovation, MS. I can't imagine ever having a reason to install it, and if I ever do, I sure hope I have a friendly neighborhood plugin to make sure it doesn't take over my browsing experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. That doesn't change anything. Why would it?
The point that you seem to miss is that it's all relative.
What defines this "busywork" that so infuriates you? How is a "trash" monster different from a worthwhile monster? Simple - it's worthwhile if you, the gamer and consumer who plunked down the change to pay for the experience, felt it was worthwhile. And you're so burned out on RPGs at this point that you seem to feel that almost none of them are.
If you ask 99% of the females on the planet, the whole concept of computer games is a vast waste of time. It's not "real", they'd say. You gain nothing real by playing them. It's all a black hole into which you dump your time and money. Go study - now that's a grind that's worth your time
But since most folks can't study every waking moment without going insane, some wonderful person invented games. Back in the day, we played them with pencils and paper, but the concept was much the same. You started at level 1, and worked your way up. There was always some kid who wanted to just start out at level 25. But he missed the entire point - we had a whole summer to kill, and needed to pace ourselves. Besides, the feeling of satisfaction gained from achieving each milestone was half the fun. If you start out "uber", you don't get that.
The fact is, games in general are pastimes. That means they pass the time. And for most RPG gamers, the escalating sense of power gained from these games is worthwhile. Because they judge it to be so, and for no other reason.
My advice to you (and no, you didn't explicitly ask for it, but your irate article can only be viewed as a cry for help) is to stop playing RPGs for a while. Perhaps a little sunshine is in order? Spring will be upon us in no time. I recommend that you find a young lady, and attempt to woo her. If you're married, then you can still woo. Trust me, she'll love it. If you like dudes, then go woo a dude. The rewards are similar.
What's that you say? You don't want to be a 'n00b' at wooing? You'd rather start off at the top, wooing super-models? That just isn't how life works, but that's actually a feature, not a bug! Any success you achieve will be all the more sweet, because you started as a n00b!
Whoever modded this post down is a dumbass, because this a good post. I had the same problem with my PS2 - the DVD drive just quit reading the discs. And that happened to several friends of mine as well. An unscientifically small sample, to be sure, but it doesn't seem to be an issue with the Xbox.
So yeah, I agree with the poster - many of those cheap new PS2s that were bought recently were the second one purchased by that particular household, because the first one broke.
To me, one of the few remaining reasons to go to a movie theater is the fact that they have a much bigger screen than I have at home, capable of showing more detail. This results in a much more satisfying experience - if you're talking about a special effects spectacular, like the latest Star Wars movie.
But for the "smaller" movie, the character-driven drama, there's very little motivation for me, and I suspect many others, to fight a Saturday night crowed, pay 10 dollars to get in, and another 10 for popcorn and a drink, when I know that in six months I can pay that same 20 dollars to own the DVD, which I can watch in the comfort or my own hobbit-hole.
But while my local Walmart or Blockbuster will stock a decent selection of DVDs, they don't have the shelf space to have a truly comprehensive library (how many Bergman films do they have at your local DVD outlet? One or two, if you're lucky). Even Bit torrent isn't a great solution for this problem, since by it's nature, popular torrents are fast, and unpopular ones are unreliable at best. It's not impossible to find independent movies on BT, but it's sure easier to find mainstream ones.
What I would love to see is an iTunes-type site geared towards indy features. The films should be sold at a price that is commensurate with the budget of the film. If it costs me 10 dollars to see a picture made for 100 million, then it seems logical that a film produced for 100 thousand ought to cost me 10 cents to view. In this manner, the indies could find a real market.
Plus, there's another recent phenomenon that's relevant here. Lots of the best work, in terms of a complex, high-quality script, is being done on Cable. Shows like "Deadwood" or "Rome" are far more entertaining to me than most movies, because a much richer story can be told in 12 hours than can in 2. Independent content producers should latch on to this "long form" story-telling approach. I dream of the day that I can purchase 12 hour-long episodes of a well-written and inexpensively produced independent drama at a reasonable price - something along the lines of a dollar an episode, or less. Obviously one probably couldn't expect the type of lavish production values seen on "Rome" for that price, but I think that quality acting and writing should be feasible. Before there was TV or movies, people used to product these things called "plays" - sort of a TV show without the cameras. So I'm pretty sure that quality entertainment can be created and sold inexpensively.
So why isn't someone doing that? Or are they? Point me to any relevant websites, please.
I think you've made my point for me. Driving a real car is dangerous. A car is a deadly weapon in the wrong hands, especially when racing and/or driving fast. Playing a racing game is about as safe as life gets. Pretty large difference, wouldn't you say? Besides, do you have a Ferrari? I don't, so a game is a good substitute.
But, I consider a game to be a poor substitute for a real guitar. There's no danger to playing a guitar. There's not much cost. The weather doesn't need to be good, and you don't need other people to be around. So to me, and it's just one person's opinion, the game is a poor substitute.
And I am not telling anyone to stop doing anything. I'm just giving my opinion, which is sorta what these forums are for. If GH works for you, then by all means... carry on.
stop thinking so much and STFU.
Wow, STFU... touche. I have no answer for the brilliance of that remark. You have beaten me, sir.
But, I do stand by my original remark that "if you spent the exact same amount of time that you put into playing GH into playing a real guitar, you would have a vastly more genuine and rewarding experience". Notice I did not say "in the same amount of time, you could play the actual song just like Eddie Van Halen". There's a pretty big difference between the two, and that difference seems to have sailed right over your head.
It's just my opinion. Unbunch your panties. It really seems like you have an inferiority complex over that fact that you like to play with a toy guitar. And you shouldn't. It just a game, as you say.
I consider that to be another bad example. It might be snowing outside, or pouring rain, and so skateboarding just isn't feasible. Or you might just have an aversion to broken bones. Skateboarding presents a very real risk of injury. You might have to travel a while to get to a place where you could skate. Not everyone has access to a giant half pipe. Those are all good reasons why the simulation would be preferable.
But guitar playing can always be done alone, in the same exact room where you play your console games. It's done with the same fingers. And you almost never break your neck while doing it.
My entire point is that I consider (and it's just one dude's opinion) actual guitar playing to be a much more worthwhile activity than Guitar Hero, given that the barriers to doing the real thing are so very minimal compared to the game.
I think that the big factor preventing all of the "guitar heros" of the world from picking up an actual guitar is fear. What if I suck at it? What if people laugh at me? You already know that you're decent enough at video games, so playing GH just seems safe and easy. And it is.
I'm cool with that. More power to you. Maybe the game will wet your appetite for the real deal, and make you wonder if those same fingers that can punch buttons so dexterously can also pluck strings.
My attitude is that if a girl wants to get busy with you, that's a groupie. I don't mean it in a derogatory sense. It just means that your mad guitar playing skills had their desired effect. And what a sweet sweet effect it is.
A couple of other hobbies that I've noticed seem to have this effect:
- Sports
- Riding a motorcycle
And a couple of hobbies that seem to repel girls:
-LARP
-bad breath
-Guitar Hero
Ok, I'm kidding on that last one. I'm sure that you could probably get some girls to play GH with you. Not all girls hate video games these days, and that's cool.
But there are great reasons to play a guitar that have nothing to do with sex. The feeling of satisfaction that you get from doing something creative cannot be simulated. You must actually do it. I love video games, and I enjoy simulations. But the real thing is sometimes better!
Real football is not within my reach. Real football teams have 100 people on them, plus helmets, uniforms, and a large field. And joining the Marines in no way is similar to an FPS - an you know that. So your examples really suck.
On the other hand, a decent used guitar costs only a little more than Guitar hero. You can do it alone. And unlike football or shooting people, there is no significant risk of injury.
Look, I'm not saying you're a bad person for enjoying Guitar Hero. I'm not saying that you should be beaten to death with your controller. I'm only saying that if you spent the exact same amount of time that you put into playing GH into playing a real guitar, you would have a vastly more genuine and rewarding experience. No, you aren't able to play instantly. But you would be able to play in no time at all. It doesn't take years, it takes most people months to become proficient enough to play a simple tune.
And whereas GH limits you in the songs that you can play, a real guitar allows you to play any song that uses our even-tempered 12 note scale (that's a lot of songs). Or, you could even make up your own!
I'm sure it will. It will also simulate groupies, then a venereal disease. Then you can simulate a heroine addiction, and finally your own untimely death in a hotel room.
I beg of you, friends - play a real guitar! Have a real life! Simulations are great fun for things that aren't feasible to really do, like racing a Ferrari, or shooting a few dozen cops, but playing a guitar is well within your reach, and the rewards of actually doing the real thing are immeasurable. You can get an actual groupie - so much better than a pixelated babe! Trust me on this one!
Live, damn you, live!
So people shouldn't get mad at you for detaining them because you are "only following orders"? That makes it ok? Not in my book it don't. If customers are regularly getting angry at you for following your store's policies, then that's a pretty good indication that your store's policies are overly invasive. If you find that the customers are your job are often mad at you, then I think you should go find a new job. It's not like there's a huge shortage of low wage retail work these days. The United States Constitution guarantees us the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. I don't see any reason why a private corporate entity should have more invasive rights than the government - none at all. If you've got tape of me putting something in my pockets and trying to leave the store with it, then great, slap the cuffs on and call the cops. If you don't, you better keep your grubby paws off me. Shawn
The thing that I can't understand is method of execution. One of the possible reasons cited for Litvinenko's murder is that he was speaking out on the murder of one of Putin's other critics, journalist Anna Politkovskaya. When she was killed, she was shot in the head with a Makarov pistol, which was then dropped next to her. Now, my extensive knowledge of espionage, gained by watching many hours of '24', tells me that this is how a pro commits a political hit. But to kill Litvinenko with an extremely had to get radioactive isotope means that the list of suspects is darn short. Is it possible that Litvinenko obtained the stuff himself, through the type of black market contacts that one would assume a former KGB agent has, and kill himself with it, just to give Putin a black eye? It's a somewhat nutty theory, but this is a nutty story. Can anyone else come up with a reason why this rather unusual method was employed? Shawn
The guy was ex-KGB. I think he could buy pretty much anything if he made a few phone calls.
The thing that's so weird about this is, why kill the guy in this way? As you said, it's not easy to get your hands on this stuff, so that narrows down the list of subjects considerably. Why not just a double tap with a Makarov to the head, like when they did that journalist a couple weeks ago?
Poster's theory is the first answer to that question that actually makes sense to me. Of course, it's just a theory...
Shawn
Rhombic called me an idiot. I didn't insult him. If Cindy Sheehan were here and she called me an asshole I'd say I deserved it for insulting her first.
Haha, so your name calling is ok because you do it yourself as well? Well, I guess that lets you off the hook for malice, somewhat. But I still think that mature political discourse is free from that sort of thing.
I don't like Sheehan because she's an attention whore. She's done nothing but dishonor the memory of her son to make herself a political celebrity.
Oh geez, there you go right back to the name calling. When you call her an "attention whore" you imply that her celebrity has no purpose, no cause. Yes, she has become a celebrity, but she has also gained attention for the peace movement. It's just not accurate to say that "she's done nothing but dishonor the memory of her son". She's raised awareness about the fact that a lot of people in this country and all over the world are not happy about our invasion of Iraq. The mainstream media in the US was so busy being a cheerleader for the military that they overlooked the other side of the issue. By giving the media a personality to focus on, and a dramatic personal tale of loss, much more press coverage was gained for the side of peace. So how is that "nothing"?
Even if the very worst case scenario about Sheehan is true, and she's only in it to gain personal fame, she's still a far better person than Bush, whose actions have resulted in thousands of deaths. Why are you not angry at him? Why pick on a mother who has lost her son?
I see you can't help but resort to name calling. Pretty mature.
It's hypocritical of you to say that after refering to Sheehan as an "asshat" and a "loon". Name calling doesn't become more mature because the person being insulted isn't present.
The fact that your comments on Sheehan are so venomous shows me that you don't have a rational basis for disliking her, but an emotional one.
If the "bickering partisans" are the problem, then isn't the solution to raise the level of political discourse, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks? What point is served by going after Sheehan like that, when by your own admission you were poorly informed regarding the incident?
I've discovered that various people I run into during the course of my day play WoW, but it's impossible for me to "hang out" with them in a virtual way because they are on different servers. Even if I start a new character on my friend's server, I can't run with him, because I'll be a rank noob while he's got 3 epics already.
So the analogy isn't perfect, as many other replies have already said. BUT, I could easily see groups of people who work at the same company gaming together on a regular basis. And if one of those folks happened to be your boss, that would be a major advantage you would have over your non-gamer coworkers. So everyone who is spitting up on themselves about how imperfect this analogy is should probably chill out, and go find out what server their boss is on.
I'm not sure really how much further they can go with the same idea over and over.
I guess it's fair to say that the PSP version amounts to watering down, because it was sort of a "lite" version. But I don't think anyone was expecting them to beat their old games on a portable device. That's really an apples and oranges comparison. The innovation is clearly going to come on the new generation of home consoles, or on PCs.
And the ways that they can expand the franchise are pretty obvious. Some of them amount to expansions of features they already have, and a couple of new directions are pretty obvious.
As new consoles become available, the whole game world gets bigger. Maps are larger, there can be more cars, more missions, and more complex interaction with NPCs. If that isn't exciting to you, then you didn't like GTA in the first place.
That goes for your character as well as the game world. They just started to add RPG elements in SA, and that can all be expanded. More skills to upgrade, more gear to use, more outfits to wear. Maybe in the new versions, you don't always have to be the same character as everyone else, but instead get to make a really unique character.
And you'll need a unique character to distinguish yourself from other people when you play online someday. I think the really exciting direction that GTA is sure to go eventually is to allow you to play with groups of people. A massive persistent world done in the GTA style is one thing that would tear me away from Worlds of Warcraft. Maybe the idea of millions of gamers paying 15 bucks a month would be enough to get them to make a PC only GTA game. Or maybe they could make it work for people on consoles too.
So I think you're a bit early in pronouncing the franchise played out. They've always done a great job of pushing console hardware to it's limits, and as the hardware improves, those limits will expand.
The Net Avenger saves the day again! Except that your rant of justice was directed at a harmless joke... oops.
I'm on the side of tolerance too, but by going off half-cocked like this, you're not opening anyone's mind. I think you need to ask yourself what your real movtivation was for posting this. Were you trying to make the world a better place, or were you venting some of your own personal rage?
I'm far from perfect myself, and I've posted my share of angry tirades in my day as well. But I never managed to convince anyone that way. That kind of tone just convinces the bigots of the world that they are right. And when you're so eager to let them have it that you don't even bother to take the time to be sure you comprehend the true intent of the person you're talking to, you really make the progressive cause look bad.
I'm sure you're a great guy, and I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I'm just suggesting that you would further our cause more by using somewhat different tactics.
Seriously, if you want a GOOD analogy, it would be more like me saying "you want a drink? great, kitchen's over there, go grab a beer". I still don't think that's a good analogy. In the case of the beer, someone had to go get it, or else no one could enjoy it. To get the utility from the item, someone had to do some work. But my whole gosh darn point, and I apologize if I'm not doing a good job of expressing it, is that a rebate adds nothing to the product. It enriches mankind in no way. Like so much of what people end up doing all day, it serves no real point, other than to make sure that half of the people don't get the price they saw in big bold letters in the ad.
So at your parties, do you offer the drinks with numerous byzantine qualifications? Or do you simply offer the drink? Because to carry your analogy to it's logical conclusion, to simply offer the drink would be more like an ordinary sale - I'll sell you a product at a somewhat lower price than usual, without any fine print. My entire point, which you seem to have missed, is that this is not what a rebate is.
If I attended a party at your house, and you offered me a drink on the condition that I jumped through hoops A, B, C and D, I'd surely refuse. I expect that some guests would jump through the hoops, then accept the drink, in order to throw it back in your face. I guess you could call that behavior rude, but I think that a certain amount of rudeness in response to rudeness is a forgiveable transgression.
What I'm trying to say is, rebates are evil, in my humble opinion, because they amount to meaningless hoop-jumping. They serve no productive purpose. If these firms were really so un-evil, they would simply offer a lower price.
What really puzzles me is, what sort of person leaps to the defense of corporate busywork? Then I noticed your screen name. If I'm interpreting it correctly, you're claiming to be, or at least expressing admiration for, a person in the Canadian military who operates a machine gun. Correct me if I'm wrong, I only know what I learned when conducting a search on the term. But if that is indeed what you mean, then I guess I have an answer to the question I just posed.
I agree with everything you said, but I think there is an important difference. With a conventional coupon, the comsumer can be quite certain before hand which camp he belongs to, and what price he will pay. But with a rebate, the whole point is that many people will delude themselves into thinking that they will jump through the hoops and get the money, when in fact they will not put in the time and effort.
So no falsehood is told to the consumer by the firms selling the product, but the firms count on a lie that the consumer tells himself. It's not illegal, but it's evil in my book.
It seems that a huge portion of business today is based on the concept of telling the literal truth, and counting on the consumer to form a false impression. It's easy to think of it as a "stupid tax", and tell yourself that only morons fall for the advertising hype. And yet I'd be willing to bet that almost every person on slashdot has failed to fill out a rebate form or two at some point, or in some other way fallen for this particular brand of BS.
And it's tough to do anything about it, since the whole point of the deception is that no one ever lied to you. No laws were broken. They counted on you, the consumer, to be stupid, or lazy, or naive, or that you would just let your hope for a better life cloud your reason.
Someday, this mountain of bullshit has to come crashing down on us.
Don't even try to bring Uncle Tom into this, the situations are totally unrelated.
Who are you supposed to be, the head admin of the Great Firewall of Slashdot? Luckily for me, I live in a free country, and can "try" to make such metaphors.
And I think it's a fair analogy. In the book of the same name, and in colloquial useage, the phrase Uncle Tom denotes someone who benefits by aiding in the oppression of his own kind. My point was that any person of Chinese descent who works for Google must at least ask himself if he is such a person, and in a larger sense, any human being who works for Yahoo, Microsoft, or Google must ask the same question.
If you want to tell me that the Chinese people prefer to be oppressed, then I would say that it is their choice, if they had democraticly chosen the leaders who enacted the censorship laws. But they didn't. They didn't seem to get any say in the matter.
since you clearly aren't Chinese, you shouldn't comment about what a Chinese person would think
I only said how I imagine I would feel, if I were in that situation. I never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself.
But in the interest of world peace, I will rephrase my comments, since I have offended you. I will avoid imagining myself as a Chinese person, by restating the case as follows. Suppose that the US was the country where the government murdered hundreds (or perhaps thousands, depending who one asks) of dissident students, and where online information about that massacre was heavily censored. If I, an American, worked for a Chinese company that was abiding by my government's policy of censorship, if I personally was helping to ensure that my countrymen were unable to learn the truth about the incident, and because of that work was able to enjoy a life of wealth, I would hate myself. I would be so filled with self-loathing that I would be quite unable to view my own image in the mirror.
This is a complex issue, and I don't claim to know the best way to encourage China to become a more open and free society. Heck, I don't even know how to encourage my own country to become more free, what with Dubya playing dictator and the so-called opposition party acting like lap dogs.
But the one thing I can say for sure in all this is that if I was a Chinese-American or a Chinese national who worked for Google, or Yahoo, or MS, I'd sure be feeling like an Uncle Tom right about now. Or is that an Uncle Wang? I'm not sure. But knowing that I was helping restrict the information access of some of my distant relatives, I'd sure feel like crapola.
But really, aren't all men supposed to be brothers? Aren't we all related, at some distant point in the far past? So to me, anyone who works for Google or one of the other companies helping to build the "Great Firewall" ought to be taking a hard look in the mirror and asking themselves... am I an Uncle Wang? Am I doing what I can to help my fellow man, or am I profiting from their oppression?
And the fact that Bill Gates says Google's actions are a good thing sure would not make me feel one iota better....
Noscript plugin for Firefox is what helped me to kill flash, and am I ever thankful for it. It lets you choose which sites can run javascript or flash, and makes browsing a lot faster and less annoying because you get to skip so many ads. I never minded the old school static banner ad too much, but as they've gotten animated and noisier, I got more motivated to find a way to rid myself of them.
Sparkle... yeah sounds great. Thanks for another innovation, MS. I can't imagine ever having a reason to install it, and if I ever do, I sure hope I have a friendly neighborhood plugin to make sure it doesn't take over my browsing experience.
anyone who will only group with people who can type 2 complete sentences without mistakes is doomed to a lifetime of soloing.
:|
Oh... I get it, folks on teh interweb can't talk right. Hilarious.
That joke is less funny every time I hear it. Like the 27 times it was already in this thread.
Whoever modded this dude up as funny should go to the doctor - your sense of humor is broken.