> While there is a lot of tactics and strategy to work out, a huge part of a game like this is simply the ability to click on and order units about as fast as possible
First off, a few terms so those that are't familiar with StarCraft aren't completely lost:
* APM = Acronym for Actions Per Minute. How fast you can click. * micro -- ability to control your units individually (i.e. tactical positioning of units taking advantage of how many "game frames" they take to execute rotations and moves, along with taking advantage of speed and range of units) * macro -- ability to produce units and keep all of your production buildings busy * multitasking -- how well you can do both, and adapt to new strategy
Short term, someone with superior micro will destroy someone with better macro. Long term, someone with better macro will destroy someone with better micro.
How well you can balance micro and macro IS what the game is about.
> Is there something I don't understand about the game here?
Yes. You are under the assumption that ALL you need to do win is have a high APM, which is false. While there is SOME truth to -- better players have a higher APM -- it ISN'T an absolute.
i.e. Spam clicking can get you up to ~400 APM. That doesn't mean you are efficient at micro and macro -- only that you can click like crazy.
The 2nd TL:DR;High APM doesn't tell me how good your macro is!
Correlation != Causation. A high APM suggests you are a better player; it does NOT guarantee it.
During the lifetime of a game your APM can and will vary. From the link above:
You can play the first 5 minutes of the game with perfect macro with 20 APM, then progress to 150APM by mid to end game and avg it out as 50
Another part of the problem is that APM has no standardized calculation; ergo some players use eAPM -- effective Actions Per Minute -- instead, which drop redundant commands
For example: S...1...2...X
If a unit starts at 'S' and the user clicks on the sequence 1, 2,X -- that is 3 clicks -- where the first two are redundant. Does that mean they have a high APM? Technically yes, BUT the eAPM is closer to the "actual" APM.
The differences between low vs high APM has been debated for ages. There are:
* Bad players with low APM -- we don't care about these * Bad players with high APM -- proof #1 that APM isn't as important as Strategy * Good players with high APM * Good players with low APM -- proof #2 that APM isn't as important as Strategy.
If you have two good players who can balance micro/macro then you'll see some VERY interesting, evenly matched games. The APM is only an indicator of potential problems.
> A computer could very obviously do this faster than any human unless it was artificially limited.
You are forgetting that all the "hard" AIs in RTS games typically cheat in 2 ways:
* They can see the entire map (doesn't have "for of war" -- it knows instantly where your base is without scouting) * They are given more starting resources and/or can harvest resources faster
In Starcraft 2, Elite AI often has like 300 - 500 APM. With the HOTS (Heart of the Swarm) expansion Blizzard replaced the "Insane" with "Elite AI". The old AI is a che
> It's only crap advice if you follow it blindly without trying to understand it
Exactly.
> You seem to be under the impression that you need to work really hard to be a good enough programmer
I didn't say "good", I said "great" -- sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
You k now that cliche:
It takes 10,000 hours to master something.
People seem to think that success is an over-night thing -- and forget that it takes years before you truly master something.
Programming has always been extremely easy for me. It has been my 1st love; nothing even comes close. I have invested most of life in it due to:
* I started around ~10, * There is a LOT to know, * I am always looking to be better, * There is ALWAYS something to learn, * I love tearing apart programs and reading what the assembly is doing, and. * 50% of what makes a good programmer is only technical. The *other* 50% has nothing to do with programming. If you aren't responsible, can't communicate, can't estimate, can't prioritize, etc. then you will suck regardless of how great technically you are.
i.e. If you are not working to improve your craft then you are in danger of being stagnant.
Programming was my passion. I just happened to be "lucky" that it was also my talent. Mike gives the false impression that being passionate about your talent is not possible -- which is simply false.
The secret to happiness is to remove false expectations
Yes, some people absolutely SUCK at what they love. The deluded ones are the ones who definitely SHOULD follow Mike's advice. They suck and always will, and no amount of talent will save them.
The problem Mike is painting everyone with the same brush. That does NOT imply that they will NEVER get better.
When I first started programming I sucked -- like every other fucking newbie -- because that's what a beginner is. Someone who DOESN'T have the knowledge and skills. I kept at it because I _loved_ it. I invested the years to becoming great. Today it pays the bills and I have a job that doesn't suck.
One of the secrets to life is to find what you love, and what your talents are.
Chances are, that if you invest in yourself, you can find a way for it to make you money.
There is no guarantees in Life. That's what makes it frustrating. Life isn't a simple checkbox-follow-these-instructions-and-success-is-guaranteed. Life is what you make it. Sometimes you need to _try_ things in order to know what _not_ to like.
Invest in yourself -- because chances are, no one else will.
The exact same problem in the Games Industry can also be seen in Movies and Music with how formulaic everything has become.
Anytime a creative market gets popular its gets monetized up the wazoo and the suits drive it into the ground sucking the soul of it along the way. News at 11.
5th Planet chief executive Robert Winkler revealed at the Game Developers Conference Online in 2012 that with its game Clash of the Dragons, 40 percent of revenue came from 2 percent of players who spent $1,000 or more. Ninety percent came from those who spent $100 or more, and the top whale had spent $6,700.
As an ex-professional game developer 95+% of mobile games are crap
* Hurry-up-and-wait gaming that constantly nag you * Exploitative predatory tactics such as gambling (loot boxes), in-app-purchases, and ads. * Mobile games tend not to respect your time, money, or space.
There ARE games that don't exploit the players:
* Hidden Folks * Limbo * Minecraft * Terreria * The Room (and all its sequels) * The Witness *etc.
> So when they're referring to 'mobile gaming', do they mean these 'twitch games' people play on their phones?
Not just twitch games. Those and more.
* Hurry-up-and-wait games * Social Games which are neither social, nor games * Games that exploit players with loot boxes, and dual currencies. * Games with IAP (In-App-Purchases) and RMT (Real-Money-Transactions) which the Desktop and Console industry sucked righted up.
Mobile Games = anything not on a desktop, laptop, or console; that is, Mobile games are anything playable on (smart) phones, tablets.
While 99% of the mobile space is crap that exploits the fuck out of people there are a few gem that respect the players' time, space, and money.
1. Since Businesses get their license from the Government, then why are Businesses allowed to limit who they serve?
2. Is is legal for a business to exclude a certain group of people based upon:
* Gender * Race * Religion * Clothing * Speech
Why is the last one (speech) OK for a business like YouTube to remove but not the others?
3. Are "Private Clubs For Men" a business? Is excluding 50% of the population legal?
I guess I've never understand why Free Speech is protected by the government but not businesses when business get their rights from the government in the first place???
2. Rotten Tomatoes measures how popular something is. Using it as a exclusively as "proof" of measurement of "quality" is shows you don't understand point #1 nor #2.
Now there is (some) overlap between a movie that is popular AND good, but there are at least4 permutations you seem to be ignoring:
RT / Quality ========= High / Good -- i.e. Baraka High / Crap -- i.e. Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Spy Kids, Jurassic World, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Prometheus, etc. Low / Good -- i.e Silence (2017), Underrated movies on RT, Ace Ventura (*) Low / Crap -- i.e. Battlefield Earth, far too much crap to list.
Legend:
High = high popular score on Rotten Tomatoes Low = low popular score on Rotten Tomatoes Good = Great characters, plot, world building, story telling, or funny / satire / parody. Crap = Who the fuck wrote/directed this shit???
We can ignore the High/Good (both > 90%) and Low/Crap (both < 40%) since in those cases it can generally be agreed upon that RT's score of popularity DOES equal quality. It is the two OTHER ones High/Crap, and Low/Good that demonstrate RT's score is based on popularity, not quality:
* High/Crap = movie might be over-rated * Low/Good = movie might be under-rated
(*) I thought Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls was funny as hell, but only a deluded fan would think it was "good" -- how should it be rated then??? Good from an Entertainment value? Crap from a Story perspective?
Beside, IMDB's Top 100 is a better correlation of good movies then RT. But again, this is still mostly a list of popular movies.
Even "better" is a combined RT and IMDb -- but even that must be taken with a grain of salt.
3. There is a HUGE disconnect between the RT's "Critics" and "Audience" score.
Spy Kids has a 93% from critics (WTF?!), yet only a 46% from the audience.
More crap like this can be seen with SW:TLJ, critics rate it 91%, yet the audience score is closer to 24% (**) -- ignoring the animated Clone Wars (2008), it is the LOWEST Star Wars film to date.
(**) RT currently shows the audience score as 47%, but this leads me to my next point.
4. Rotten Tomatoes pull shenanigans like this: They don't count half stars!
McDonald's serves BILLIONS. Does that mean they serve gourmet food? No, just cheap, popular, crap.
2. Avatar was a formulaic, rip-off of "Dances with Wolves" in space, which Cameron even admitted.
Yes, exactly, it is very much like that. You see the same theme in "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" and also "The Emerald Forest," which maybe thematically isn't that connected but it did have that clash of civilizations or of cultures. That was another reference point for me. There was some beautiful stuff in that film. I just gathered all this stuff in and then you look at it through the lens of science fiction and it comes out looking very different but is still recognizable in a universal story way. It's almost comfortable for the audience â" "I know what kind of tale this is." They're not just sitting there scratching their heads, they're enjoying it and being taken along. And we still have turns and surprises in it, too, things you don't see coming. But the idea that you feel like you are in a classic story, a story that could have been shaped by Rudyard Kipling or Edgar Rice Burroughs.
The GP is just pointing out he found Avatar far too derivative -- probably because he remembers these other movies.
Personally, I'm still going to enjoy the visuals of Avatar on my BluRay regardless of how formulaic and copy-cat it was. But I'm also not going to bury my head in the sand saying it was "original". I will recognize that it snuck in the out-of-body experience (OBE) and consciousness transference in a accessible way. The joke about unobtanium was a good social commentary and parody of how we have become dependent on oil. Avatar has some deeper themes if one so wishes to pursue:
Was Avatar well executed? Yup. Was Avatar original? Nope. Was Avatar good? Good is relative to what the view has already seen. WHY was Avatar popular? Ah, now THIS is probably the better question to ask but that is a discussion for another day.
The evils of a long copyright duration have long been discussed going back to at least 1841:
* A Speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 5th of February, 1841, by Thomas Babington Macaulay * A Speech delivered in a Committee of the House of Commons on the 6th of April, 1842, by Thomas Babington Macaulay
Though, Sir, it is in some sense agreeable to approach a subject with which political animosities have nothing to do, I offer myself to your notice with some reluctance. It is painful to me to take a course which may possibly be misunderstood or misrepresented as unfriendly to the interests of literature and literary men. It is painful to me, I will add, to oppose my honorable and learned friend on a question which he has taken up from the purest motives, and which he regards with a parental interest. These feelings have hitherto kept me silent when the law of copyright has been under discussion. But as I am, on full consideration, satisfied that the measure before us will, if adopted, inflict grievous injury on the public, without conferring any compensating advantage on men of letters, I think it my duty to avow that opinion and to defend it.
The first thing to be done, Sir, is to settle on what principles the question is to be argued. Are we free to legislate for the public good, or are we not? Is this a question of expediency, or is it a question of right? Many of those who have written and petitioned against the existing state of things treat the question as one of right. The law of nature, according to them, gives to every man a sacred and indefeasible property in his own ideas, in the fruits of his own reason and imagination. The legislature has indeed the power to take away this property, just as it has the power to pass an act of attainder for cutting off an innocent mans head without a trial. But, as such an act of attainder would be legal murder, so would an act invading the right of an author to his copy be, according to these gentlemen, legal robbery.
Now, Sir, if this be so, let justice be done, cost what it may. I am not prepared like my honorable and learned friend, to agree to a compromise between right and expediency, and to commit an injustice for the public convenience....
We have, then, only one resource left. We must betake ourselves to copyright, be the inconveniences of copyright what they may. Those inÂconÂveÂniÂences, in truth, are neither few nor small. Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly....
Now, I will not affirm that the existing law is perfect, that it exactly hits the point at which the monopoly ought to cease; but this I confidently say, that the existing law is very much nearer that point than the law proposed by my honorable and learned friend. For consider this; the evil effects of the monopoly are proportioned to the length of its duration. But the good effects for the sake of which we bear with the evil effects are by no means proportioned to the length of its duration. A monopoly of sixty years produces twice as much evil as a monopoly of thirty years, and thrice as much evil as a monopoly of twenty years....
...
and (emphasis added)
...
Sir, I have no objection to the principle of my noble friends bill. Indeed, I had no objection to the principle of the bill of last year. I have long thought that the term of copyright ought to be extended. When Mr. Serjeant Talfourd moved for leave to bring in his bill, I did not oppose the motion. Indeed, I meant to vote for the second reading, and to reserve what I had to say for the Committee. But the learned Serjeant left me no choice. He, in strong language, begged that nobody who was disposed to reduce the term of sixty years would divide wi
Slashdot Mirror
> While there is a lot of tactics and strategy to work out, a huge part of a game like this is simply the ability to click on and order units about as fast as possible
= Short Answer =
TL:DR; False. Even 19,000 APM won't save you.
= Long Answer =
First off, a few terms so those that are't familiar with StarCraft aren't completely lost:
* APM = Acronym for Actions Per Minute. How fast you can click.
* micro -- ability to control your units individually (i.e. tactical positioning of units taking advantage of how many "game frames" they take to execute rotations and moves, along with taking advantage of speed and range of units)
* macro -- ability to produce units and keep all of your production buildings busy
* multitasking -- how well you can do both, and adapt to new strategy
Short term, someone with superior micro will destroy someone with better macro.
Long term, someone with better macro will destroy someone with better micro.
How well you can balance micro and macro IS what the game is about.
> Is there something I don't understand about the game here?
Yes. You are under the assumption that ALL you need to do win is have a high APM, which is false. While there is SOME truth to -- better players have a higher APM -- it ISN'T an absolute.
i.e. Spam clicking can get you up to ~400 APM. That doesn't mean you are efficient at micro and macro -- only that you can click like crazy.
The 2nd TL:DR; High APM doesn't tell me how good your macro is!
Correlation != Causation. A high APM suggests you are a better player; it does NOT guarantee it.
During the lifetime of a game your APM can and will vary. From the link above:
Another part of the problem is that APM has no standardized calculation; ergo some players use eAPM -- effective Actions Per Minute -- instead, which drop redundant commands
For example:
S...1...2...X
If a unit starts at 'S' and the user clicks on the sequence 1, 2,X -- that is 3 clicks -- where the first two are redundant. Does that mean they have a high APM? Technically yes, BUT the eAPM is closer to the "actual" APM.
The differences between low vs high APM has been debated for ages. There are:
* Bad players with low APM -- we don't care about these
* Bad players with high APM -- proof #1 that APM isn't as important as Strategy
* Good players with high APM
* Good players with low APM -- proof #2 that APM isn't as important as Strategy.
If you have two good players who can balance micro/macro then you'll see some VERY interesting, evenly matched games. The APM is only an indicator of potential problems.
> A computer could very obviously do this faster than any human unless it was artificially limited.
You are forgetting that all the "hard" AIs in RTS games typically cheat in 2 ways:
* They can see the entire map (doesn't have "for of war" -- it knows instantly where your base is without scouting)
* They are given more starting resources and/or can harvest resources faster
In Starcraft 2, Elite AI often has like 300 - 500 APM. With the HOTS (Heart of the Swarm) expansion Blizzard replaced the "Insane" with "Elite AI". The old AI is a che
Doesn't change the fact that a bunch of indies made it.
> It's only crap advice if you follow it blindly without trying to understand it
Exactly.
> You seem to be under the impression that you need to work really hard to be a good enough programmer
I didn't say "good", I said "great" -- sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
You k now that cliche:
It takes 10,000 hours to master something.
People seem to think that success is an over-night thing -- and forget that it takes years before you truly master something.
Programming has always been extremely easy for me. It has been my 1st love; nothing even comes close. I have invested most of life in it due to:
* I started around ~10,
* There is a LOT to know,
* I am always looking to be better,
* There is ALWAYS something to learn,
* I love tearing apart programs and reading what the assembly is doing, and.
* 50% of what makes a good programmer is only technical. The *other* 50% has nothing to do with programming. If you aren't responsible, can't communicate, can't estimate, can't prioritize, etc. then you will suck regardless of how great technically you are.
i.e.
If you are not working to improve your craft then you are in danger of being stagnant.
Programming was my passion. I just happened to be "lucky" that it was also my talent. Mike gives the false impression that being passionate about your talent is not possible -- which is simply false.
> Its not as bad as you would think
Yes it is.
I would also add animated gifs to "Things that suck about the Web"
(Gee, thanks for sucking up 5+ MB of bandwidth. There is a reason we have a dedicated MOVIE format such as .mp4.)
> Now it is better to trick people into signing up for content "give us your email address
I noticed that everyone is going heavy into tracking. Recently I received an email from InVision talking about Walmart's redesigned website.
Now instead of a _simple_ URL:
They link to some crap like this:
Fuck off with your tracking.
That's partially crap advice by Mike Rowe.
The secret to happiness is to remove false expectations
Yes, some people absolutely SUCK at what they love. The deluded ones are the ones who definitely SHOULD follow Mike's advice. They suck and always will, and no amount of talent will save them.
The problem Mike is painting everyone with the same brush. That does NOT imply that they will NEVER get better.
When I first started programming I sucked -- like every other fucking newbie -- because that's what a beginner is. Someone who DOESN'T have the knowledge and skills. I kept at it because I _loved_ it. I invested the years to becoming great. Today it pays the bills and I have a job that doesn't suck.
One of the secrets to life is to find what you love, and what your talents are.
Chances are, that if you invest in yourself, you can find a way for it to make you money.
There is no guarantees in Life. That's what makes it frustrating. Life isn't a simple checkbox-follow-these-instructions-and-success-is-guaranteed. Life is what you make it. Sometimes you need to _try_ things in order to know what _not_ to like.
Invest in yourself -- because chances are, no one else will.
* Do what interests you, and/or
* Do what pays.
Next question.
> I just don't "get" the appeal of gaming on a phone.
* Portability, and
* Addiction, aka hurry-up-and-wait gaming, loot boxes, and exploitation
To fully answer the question, you need to understand the:
Psychology of gaming whales
Yup.
The exact same problem in the Games Industry can also be seen in Movies and Music with how formulaic everything has become.
Anytime a creative market gets popular its gets monetized up the wazoo and the suits drive it into the ground sucking the soul of it along the way. News at 11.
The mobile space is just the latest fad.
AM2R is NOT a port -- it is a fan remake, aka an indy.
Milton "DoctorM64" Guasti is a sound technician who used Game Maker to create AM2R without Nintendo's permission.
> Its not as bad as you would think and it's designed for those devices and the graphics are way better than you think.
Yes it is. It's far worse. Whales are < 2% of the customers, but make > 95% of the money for game developers.
https://venturebeat.com/2013/0...
As an ex-professional game developer 95+% of mobile games are crap
* Hurry-up-and-wait gaming that constantly nag you
* Exploitative predatory tactics such as gambling (loot boxes), in-app-purchases, and ads.
* Mobile games tend not to respect your time, money, or space.
There ARE games that don't exploit the players:
* Hidden Folks
* Limbo
* Minecraft
* Terreria
* The Room (and all its sequels)
* The Witness
*etc.
You have to look, but they are there.
> No one wants to lug around a PC computer to play a multiplayer game.
Uh, that's what mobile gaming is -- by definition.
This is ignoring the fact that some games just DON'T work (well) on a mobile. i.e. Let me know when I can play:
* Starcraft 2
* World of Warcraft
on a phone.
Mouse + Keyboard is vastly superior for some games.
Mobile gaming is here to stay. That's NOT the problem. The problem is the exploitative behavior.
It is bullshit like this is driving the mobile games straight into the ground.
> The people who finance AAA Console and PC games
Why are you ignoring indies that don't exploit players???
Best Indy Games:
* Minecraft
* Terraria
Or more recent ones like:
* AM2R
* Braid
* Castle Crashers
* Cave Story
* Cuphead
* Fez
* Inside
* Limbo
* Path of Exile
* Super Meat Boy
* Stardew Valley
* The Witness
> PC and Console is in pathetic shape right now by comparison. No innovation. No experimentation
AAA games yes, but indies ARE trying new stuff.
> So when they're referring to 'mobile gaming', do they mean these 'twitch games' people play on their phones?
Not just twitch games. Those and more.
* Hurry-up-and-wait games
* Social Games which are neither social, nor games
* Games that exploit players with loot boxes, and dual currencies.
* Games with IAP (In-App-Purchases) and RMT (Real-Money-Transactions) which the Desktop and Console industry sucked righted up.
Mobile Games = anything not on a desktop, laptop, or console; that is, Mobile games are anything playable on (smart) phones, tablets.
While 99% of the mobile space is crap that exploits the fuck out of people there are a few gem that respect the players' time, space, and money.
So in other words you don't know.
Apparently asking a simple question is now begging the question?
WTF is a MRA/nazi apologist?
Wonder how many people will use this feature as a quick "hookup"?
Honest Questions:
1. Since Businesses get their license from the Government, then why are Businesses allowed to limit who they serve?
2. Is is legal for a business to exclude a certain group of people based upon:
* Gender
* Race
* Religion
* Clothing
* Speech
Why is the last one (speech) OK for a business like YouTube to remove but not the others?
3. Are "Private Clubs For Men" a business? Is excluding 50% of the population legal?
I guess I've never understand why Free Speech is protected by the government but not businesses when business get their rights from the government in the first place???
> ... users that used to be all over slashdot have moved to Phoronix, ...
That shitty website that constantly links back to itself making it almost impossible to find the _original_ article?
Do you have any evidence that there was a mass exodus away from /. ?
> Whoever heard of a 30 year old jewish man in roman palestine not being married. Oh the humanity.
Were single men even allowed to preach in the temple back then?
> Neural networks and genetic algorithms are NOT SENTIENT or anywhere close.
Agree with your sentiments; you are hinting at precisely the problem:
How do you test for sentience?
How do you test for consciousness?
How do you test for intelligence?
Without a way to measure it these labels of "Artificial Intelligence" are bullshit.
Yeah, its not the best example.
Maybe restore a retro console to be working again, would have been a better example.
"Restore" means jack shit:
* Restore prohibition? (bad)
* Restore an antique? (good)
Likewise, WTF is "neutrality " ? It raises these questions:
* WHAT _isn't_ neutral?
* HOW did it end up not being neutral?
* WHY should it be?
A more descriptive title would go a LONG ways.
1. Correlation != Causation.
2. Rotten Tomatoes measures how popular something is. Using it as a exclusively as "proof" of measurement of "quality" is shows you don't understand point #1 nor #2.
Now there is (some) overlap between a movie that is popular AND good, but there are at least 4 permutations you seem to be ignoring:
RT / Quality
=========
High / Good -- i.e. Baraka
High / Crap -- i.e. Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Spy Kids, Jurassic World, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Prometheus, etc.
Low / Good -- i.e Silence (2017), Underrated movies on RT, Ace Ventura (*)
Low / Crap -- i.e. Battlefield Earth, far too much crap to list.
Legend:
High = high popular score on Rotten Tomatoes
Low = low popular score on Rotten Tomatoes
Good = Great characters, plot, world building, story telling, or funny / satire / parody.
Crap = Who the fuck wrote/directed this shit???
We can ignore the High/Good (both > 90%) and Low/Crap (both < 40%) since in those cases it can generally be agreed upon that RT's score of popularity DOES equal quality. It is the two OTHER ones High/Crap, and Low/Good that demonstrate RT's score is based on popularity, not quality:
* High/Crap = movie might be over-rated
* Low/Good = movie might be under-rated
(*) I thought Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls was funny as hell, but only a deluded fan would think it was "good" -- how should it be rated then??? Good from an Entertainment value? Crap from a Story perspective?
Beside, IMDB's Top 100 is a better correlation of good movies then RT. But again, this is still mostly a list of popular movies.
Even "better" is a combined RT and IMDb -- but even that must be taken with a grain of salt.
3. There is a HUGE disconnect between the RT's "Critics" and "Audience" score.
Spy Kids has a 93% from critics (WTF?!), yet only a 46% from the audience.
More crap like this can be seen with SW:TLJ, critics rate it 91%, yet the audience score is closer to 24% (**) -- ignoring the animated Clone Wars (2008), it is the LOWEST Star Wars film to date.
(**) RT currently shows the audience score as 47%, but this leads me to my next point.
4. Rotten Tomatoes pull shenanigans like this: They don't count half stars!
The Last Jedi ACTUAL Rotten Tomatoes popcorn score is 24 percent - Mark Sargent
Ignoring the data doesn't make it go away.
The problem is people like you conflate "popular" == good, or RT "high score" == good, when that simply isn't the case.
You are completely missing the points.
1. Quantity != Quality.
McDonald's serves BILLIONS. Does that mean they serve gourmet food? No, just cheap, popular, crap.
2. Avatar was a formulaic, rip-off of "Dances with Wolves" in space, which Cameron even admitted.
"Going native" is not a new thing. i.e. Pocahontas and Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest which shares themes with Avatar has been done for ages, and will continue to be done in the future.
The GP is just pointing out he found Avatar far too derivative -- probably because he remembers these other movies.
Personally, I'm still going to enjoy the visuals of Avatar on my BluRay regardless of how formulaic and copy-cat it was. But I'm also not going to bury my head in the sand saying it was "original". I will recognize that it snuck in the out-of-body experience (OBE) and consciousness transference in a accessible way. The joke about unobtanium was a good social commentary and parody of how we have become dependent on oil. Avatar has some deeper themes if one so wishes to pursue:
* Avatar: A Multi-Dimensional Pop Parable for Ascension
* The Theology of Avatar
Was Avatar well executed? Yup.
Was Avatar original? Nope.
Was Avatar good? Good is relative to what the view has already seen.
WHY was Avatar popular? Ah, now THIS is probably the better question to ask but that is a discussion for another day.
The evils of a long copyright duration have long been discussed going back to at least 1841:
* A Speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 5th of February, 1841, by Thomas Babington Macaulay
* A Speech delivered in a Committee of the House of Commons on the 6th of April, 1842, by Thomas Babington Macaulay
and (emphasis added)
Trying actually reading what ArchieBunker said
Eric was NOT doing it for financial gain. The proof was that he was only charging $0.25.
It doesn't matter what Microsoft says they are worth. The price that Microsoft charges is completely irrelevant. HINT: It was a FREE download.
> MS sells the discs for the same price.
[[Citation]]