Five hundered years from now, we don't know what the technology will be like.
I wonder if Mr. Ebert expects expects films to be viewable in their original media in 500 years. What with periodically-changing film sizes and speeds, and now digital video codecs, Ebert's own favorite art form doesn't seem particularly "eternal" either. In fact, just like video games, the only ways to appreciate old films are to 1) preserve the associated film player, or 2) convert the film to the new format. Sure, you could bust open the film reel, hold it up to a light, and look at it frame by frame, but that goes against the artist's intended viewing scenario, something Ebert considers extremely important.
Perhaps Ebert realizes all this, but thinks that the contents of the film (if not the physical medium) is safe from the ravages of time. After all, there are works 100 years old which can be enjoyed by film buffs even to this day!... And yet, the vast majority of people are not interested in these classic films, preferring instead the lastest and greatest blockbuster hits. Just like classic video games, only a relatively small group of people regularly enjoy classic films, this small group having a "deeper appreciation" for the art form. The general public just wants to see more explosions and/or more melodramatic love stories, and are not impressed by the efforts of the early film masters, whose works are quite dull by contemporary standards.
Mr. Ebert might notice other points where video games are plainly different and not-at-all-identical to film:
Most of the best-selling titles are devoid of artistic statement, and simply exist to entertain audiences and make profit.
The market is currently (and has been for most of its history) controlled by a handful of big studios, who often re-hash ideas, bring back "stars" from previous titles, and inflate prices in order to make an extra buck.
Studios think that new titles must provide ever-increasing levels of special effects, features, and gimmicks in order to continue to attract new audiences.
Only a small number of independent producers exist, and most indie titles fly under the radar of the general audience, with only the very occasional title getting noticed and becoming a "cult classic" or even a public sensation.
Which brings me to my point: does Ebert intentionally ignore the obvious similarities between film and video games, or is he simply too ignorant of the history of video games to see them in the first place?
the Revolution will in essence be an evolution of the GameCube hardware.
For the armchair developers out there, this is a good thing. The more similarity between the Gamecube and the Revolution in terms of architecture, the more quickly development studios can get the hang of it and start putting out some really interesting games.
Every time a new console with a different architecture comes out, the studios have to start back at square one, and learn the intricacies of the new hardware. After a couple years of working with the system, the studio has built up their own custom library/engine to handle the basics, and they have learned several tricks for squeezing that extra "oomph" out of the hardware. This is why games that come out several years after the console often look, sound, and feel much better than lauch titles, even though they are using the exact same hardware. Compare, for example, Ocarina of Time with Majora's Mask on the N64: They both use the same hardware, and MM is obviously based on OoT's engine. But because MM didn't have to reinvent the wheel, the developers were freed to create an intriguing, even beautiful, experience.
So if the Revolution's architecture is mostly a beefed-up Gamecube, studios should be able to quickly adapt their libraries to work on the Revolution, so they can spend less time worrying about memory management and polygon-pushing, and more time creating interesting ways to use the new controller. Nintendo, by using the Gamecube architecture as a base, has essentially given studios 5 retroactive years of experience with the Revolution devkits, and the launch titles should be must more interesting as a result.
It is not groundbreaking until you can use a flask of oil to light your head on fire and proceed to head-butt a troll. There might not be much tactical benefit to that maneuver, but until that style of actions can be implemented, Nethack cannot be groundbreaking.
If you're saying what I think you're saying... well, you have rather high expectations, don't you?
You say Nethack cannot be groundbreaking at all, unless you have total and complete freedom of action, and arbitrary combinations of objects interact realistically? Do you realize that what you are asking for is a perfect, interactive simulation of physical reality, a task which is downright impossible? (To fulfill your criterion of total and arbitrary simulation of reality, the simulation would have to be able to simulate itself in perfect detail, including the ability to simulate itself, so that you would have an infinite number of possible sub-simulations.)
Here are some other things you can't do in nethack. I guess the developers had better start working on them if they want to break any ground before our sun dies out and the surface of the Earth freezes over:
* Play tennis with the NPC shopkeeps on the weekends. * Form a monopoly over the growing industry of narcotics trafficking. * Construct a robotic army to do your bidding. * Divert a river into the cavern, drowning the monsters. * Invent an antimatter propulsion system, use it to build an interstellar vehicle, and then pilot it to Alpha Centauri. * Post absurd comments on an online news page. * Paint a mural detailing your own epic adventures in mural-painting. * Persuade the enemies to attack you with pillows instead of real weapons. * Own and run a lingerie store. * Create an artificial protein structure with possible medical uses. * Practice tai chi. * Create and play a text-based dungeon crawler equally as complex as the game you are creating it in.
Maybe Gamers are the worst people to make games. I don't know. You might could actually blame games for that, a first in my book.
Loving to play games doesn't necessarily mean you are good at creating games. And it's not just this way with games.
Just because someone liked Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies doesn't mean that they could have done a good job directing them. And that tubby, dancing, shirtless football fan in the 5th row could not replace his favorite team's quarterback with a moment's notice. And, unfortunately, just because it's fun to hear about some new scientific discovery, doesn't mean you could have discovered it yourself.
But that doesn't mean that there is a negative correlation, i.e. "no one who is interested in something has skill in it". Evidence suggests otherwise. Peter Jackson obviously has great interest in film, or he wouldn't be directing. Most of the best video game creators have a lot of interest in video games, too.
I'd summarize the situation like this:
Being interested in something doesn't mean you are good at it.
But, it helps.
It's not the only thing you must have in order to be good, though.
So, looking at video games:
Not everyone who is interested in video games is good at making them.
But, most of the people who are good at making them are also interested in them.
There is something that the great creators have, which the ordinary fans don't have. Let's call it creativity. The article says that creativity isn't being taught in game-design degree programs, and so you should get a liberal arts degree instead. But if creativity isn't being taught to game-design students, that doesn't mean that it cannot possibly be taught.
I myself am working towards an AAS in 3d Computer Animation, and there has been a very heavy artistic emphasis; some of the required courses are photography, acting, film appreciation, and sculpture. There is another degree program entitled "3d Computer Graphics Programming", which covers the more technical aspect, and is lighter on the "artsy fartsy" stuff; some of the required courses are C programming, data structures, and OpenGL programming. There are several classes that overlap between the two programs, though, and thus interaction and collaboration between the two types of students.
So it seems to me that the problem is not that the game degree program is mostly technical. The problem is that there is no corresponding art-focused program. What they should do is rename the technical program into game engineering, and create a new program, the true game design degree program. Games do need code monkeys, but they also need prima donna artistes. If you only have the one, you get tech demos. If you only have the other, you get paint splatters and jars of urine.
But if you have both... then, you get truly great stuff: tech demos where you make paint splatters and jars of urine using a built-in fluid dynamics engine!
Uhuh, so you're suggesting that you receive no benefit from there being a fresh batch of teenagers entering the workforce every year.
If I had suggested such a thing, it would have been a foolish and unprovable claim. It would also be foolish to suggest, as you are doing, that teenagers are entering the workforce to provide some intangible benefit to "society". They are already being compensated for the benefit that they provide.
If the parents do a good job, they too are rewarded for their years of labor spent raising a child: both from the satisfaction of a "job well done" continuing the species and their own genes, and from emotional and material support in their old age.
Point out the person who is providing a service to me, but whom is not being paid for that service, and I will pay him in proportion to the services rendered. But don't expect me to give my money to nameless strangers so they can collect a second paycheck, nor to pay for services provided to people I have never even met.
We all enjoy the benefits of scientific discoveries and, as any mathematician will tell you, its a game for the young.
At what point did I suggest that humanity should stop breeding? Humanity has had quite a lot of success makin' babies without everyone else paying for the diapers afterwards; I see no reason why people would suddenly change their mating habits in response to the government abstaining (no pun intended) from trying to re-shape society.
We all enjoy the benefits of discoveries, yes, but we also compensate the discoverer—or, at least, such would be the case with a functional patent system. Right now, there are quite a few people making fortunes from other people's work (something which closely resembles what you are proposing, in fact). But that's another issue entirely.
Maybe someday we'll reverse the aging process and the effect children have on society will become negative, but until then we can either continue our hand-off, see no evil, hear no evil approach to introducing children to society or we can encourage parents to utilize the services of a professional child carer - and no, I'm not talking about a school teacher!
I'm not sure where you got the idea that all parents are perpetuating some great crime against each generation of infants, but I can assure you that there exist some parents who actually do a decent job of raising kids on their own.
Of course, there are bad parents, too—people who, in fairness, shouldn't have tried to raise children. But I take issue with your idea of taxing everyone, including the good parents, to pay for the mistakes of a few. You talk about the current system as a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach—what, then, do you call it when the government steps in and says, "You've done something bad, and that was unfortunate. But we'll take care of it. Don't you worry your little head. There's no need for you to change."
I'd also like to make clear that there is a major difference between encouraging certain parents to use child care and mandating that all parents use child care. One is optional, a mere suggestion of possible benefit. The other is an order, backed by threat of imprisonment and other forms of physical force. (I am not saying that the government will send the army to your door if you don't pay taxes one year; but a tax is a law, and a law is ultimately supported by the government's ability to enforce it through physical force.)
As much as I hate to admit it, children are a public good. They should be supported by taxes.
(I really shouldn't feed the trolls, but this one is a little too good to pass up.)
Your plan is really quite fascinating, but it has a couple little kinks that will have to be worked out before you put it before Congress/Parliament/etc.:
1. It is inherently unfair. Suppose Citizen A is a single, employed man. Citizen B is an unemployed, "deadbeat dad" with 6 children. Why should Citizen A be forced to pay a monetary fine because Citizen B doesn't want to wear a condom during sex with his wife/girlfriend/partner/whore? Why should the conseqences of Citizen B's actions be paid for by everyone else? Should we also start paying for each others' car insurance, so that Citizen B isn't inconvenienced when he causes $20,000 in property damage when he tries to drive himself home after a night of drinking?
2. It is inherently unwise. Would you actually want your children to be raised or even paid-for by the government? Aside from such Brave New World-esque concerns as brainwashing ("Don't worry Senator, in 6 years when you run for President, you'll have enough 'supporters' to carry you through in 7 key states; I'll see to that! *evil laughter, thunder sounds*"), there is the more practical concern of money—in particular, the taking of money and flushing it down the toilet via a monolithic bureaucracy which spends 30-40% of the taxes maintaining itself, instead of supporting the children.
3. It is based on false assumptions. You say that children are a "public good". Is my life enriched because the couple next-door had a couple brats who scream and shout at all hours when I'm trying to sleep? Is your child's life enriched when she has to be crammed into a classroom with 40 other kids because there aren't enough teachers to handle them all? Children are not a public good, nor are they a public responsibility. Both the benefit and the responsibility of raising children are private, belonging only to those individuals who know and care for the children (parents, relatives, etc.).
Don't worry, though; I'm sure if you fix these small problems in your plan, it will be workable.
Err.. hrmm.. well, no, it looks like your plan would be quite non-existent then. Sorry if I let the air out of your balloon.
Re:Halo -- what about Goldeneye?
on
What is Next-Gen?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Slow framerates are not relevant to the discussion of innovative controls, nor are your own difficulties in finding objectives. Your third point has some modicum of merit, but you seem to forget that the N64 controller had only one control stick, while the Xbox had two; it would be impossible for Goldeneye to control both movement and aiming with control sticks... using only one controller. (I will also point out that, with some skill, a player could use the C buttons to aim while moving with pretty good results, certainly good enough for those situations where you must run and shoot at people above/below you.)
But, seeing as how Rareware not only anticipated but delivered a two-stick control scheme (using two N64 controllers, one per hand) for a first-person shooter 4 years before Halo, I don't see how Halo can support any sort of claim to innovation in controls in that regard. Progress or refinement, possibly, but not innovation. Even Goldeneye is not so much innovative as it is a predictable successor to Turok.
It would seem rather silly to have TWO branches of portables, one of which seems very much a superset of the other one. And I'd hate to have to buy both portables and their respective games, from now on.
[WARNING: SARCASM DETECTED]
Very true. It's also silly to have so many branches of cars. SUVs, trucks, and small cars... it's all so confusing! They should just make one type of car so we wouldn't have to decide. After all, everybody has the same needs and budgets, right?
P.S. What's up with computer manufacturers offering fast, expensive PCs alongside slower but cheaper PCs? The expensive PCs can do everything the cheap ones can, so why wouldn't everyone just buy the most expensive PC on the market?
They don't usually shell out $25 for a new edition of the same book every year, even if it contains corrected typos or a new 1-page introduction by the author. Certainly not en masse, as people do with [sports title] 200X. Fans of a particular book might buy a new copy when their current copy becomes unusable from wear-and-tear (pages falling out, etc.), but games certainly don't become unusable on an annual basis.
Many existing games are as entertaining, if not more entertaining, than the new games, even many years after they were released. If someone is still entertained by a game on the Xbox (for example), why the compulsion to spend money on an Xbox360 and game, which may not be as entertaining? I'm not willing to say that addiction is the only explanation, but they are clearly NOT doing it for simple entertainment.
It used to be called the GPX2, but the name was changed to avoid potential trademark conflicts with a Japanese printer called GPX. The final, official name is GP2X. The domain name and product photo were, for whatever reason, not updated.
The way you said it does make them sound more like a scam, though, and less like a tech startup trying to avoid potential lawsuits. Microsoft likes the way you spin things, and would like to offer you a job in PR.
(Maybe I am assuming maliciousness where ignorance could explain it, but the name change is not a Great Mystery, particularly in this era of magical search engines. If the parent is not purposefully trying to put Gamepark Holding in a bad light, and instead is just dumb or lazy, I sincerely apologize.)
Games teach lots of things, many of them directly applicable to real life. I'm not just talking Elmo's ABCs and other edutainment titles; games can trigger the use of many parts of the brain, building up skills, increasing the rate at which your brain can sort through information, and slow mental deterioration in the elderly.
I've heard (and probably repeated) the half-joke, "Of course video games teach stuff! Tetris taught me how to fit falling blocks together." I guess people laugh because they think that fitting blocks together doesn't have real-world applications. Architects, stonemasons, and engineers (among others) would, I imagine, beg to differ. Do you think that after playing so much Tetris, someone wouldn't be at least slightly more adept at fitting shaped objects together? It sure comes in handy when you're trying to assemble cheap boxed furniture, trying to figure out how tab A goes into slot B without covering up hole C, into which you're supposed to put peg D.
Similar, perhaps less-apparent examples can be found in other genres:
- RTS: Managing multiple groups of units to accomplish several sub-goals towards an ultimate goal. (Even a rank amateur should know that you can't send the same group of units into every battle without suffering some losses; so, why does the pointy-haired boss keep loading you up with big project after big project?)
- Racing: Handling different types and weights of car and avoiding obstacles without spinning out. (Going around a bend? Better slow down. Stuck in a dead-end? You may have to perform a three-point turn-around to get pointed in the direction you want to go.)
- FPS: Using different weapons/tools to most effectively eliminate enemies/problems. (Don't waste all your rockets on the imps, you'll need them for the boss. Programming language X doesn't have a very good string-parsing library? Try language Y.)
Soldiers in World War II didn't all have eyes with built-in film grain.... Games should try to be games, not try to be films.
The goal of games is not necessarily to simulate reality at all, just as the goal of painting, photography, and film is not necessarily to accurately show events as they occurred. There will always be non-realistic (i.e. stylized) depictions in any field of art, and that is not a bad thing at all.
Whether or not soldiers in WWII saw everything through film grain is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it enhances or diminishes the theme of the game. The more tools available to artists, the better.
You could either vote for the "tax and spend" Liberals, or the "spend" Republicans.
Not to imply that any of them are feasible, but there are other alternatives, including political activism, meeting with your representatives, and running for office yourself (or supporting an independent candidate who you agree with).
And of course, there is America's most popular option, which is to simply not vote at all. Viva la apatia?
In America, nearly half (or more) of the population has one or more dogs.
That's because Americans love puppies, of course! Everybody loves puppies, hence the amazing sales figures for Nintendogs worldwide!
I have to say though, I'm really looking forward to the inevitable Nintencats! Picture this:
Your Nintencat won't come when you call it's name, thanks to the DS microphone!
Don't teach your Nintencat tricks using the touch screen and stylus!
Don't take your Nintencat for walks and explore the neighborhood!
Don't compete in disc-fetching and agility trials!
Real time! Your DS will start wailing and making loud thumping and scratching noises when you're tryng to sleep, and you won't be able to find where your Nintencat is napping during the day!
Set the game on "Hiss Mode" and close the DS, and Nintencats will use Wi-fi to detect other nearby Nintencats and get in fights with them!
I don't think our youth have become connected to video games so much that they will choose a simulation over the real thing.
EA Sports would care to disagree with you on that one, "Tubby." (I kid, I kid.)
Well the article is pretty devoid of useful or interesting information, besides implying that Bioware has the names and addresses of all its customers, so I'll have to create some interest of my own.
*clears throat*
How does Bioware make a community work?
<spiteful>Well, it's certainly not by letting Linux and Mac users create their own content!</spite>
*grumble grumble*
Yeah, I know they did better than most by having even clients/servers for Linux and Mac, but NWN without a content editor is like Quake without multiplayer — its replay value has dropped a thousand-fold. (Hell, I could barely stand to play through the original campaign the first time—BioWare is in more desperate need of quality content creators than they are willing to admit!)
And, yeah, I know there are such open-source utilities as neveredit, but third-party tools don't make Bioware look any more supportive. Last I heard, Bioware wasn't even giving hints about their proprietary package formats, let alone a full specification, so it's all been through reverse engineering.
Interestingly, TFA includes this:
Fans as content creators are another asset. "If you build it, they will build it as well..." Some members want to add to the community in very real and meaningful ways, and some of them possess "mad skillz." "90% of what sustains a community," Watamaniuk stated, "is the community itself. You provide the framework for their work. If fans are there creating content, it means that you don't have to create 100% of the content yourself."
I guess none of the talented artists are using Macs, and none of the talented scripters are using Linux; they are all using Windows, right?
It's still not too late for Bioware to stitch its own self-amputated leg back on. If I had the tools, I would start making content (I am, IMNSHO, both a talented artist and a talented coder) at the drop of a hat.
So the military does in fact believe that visual exposure to violence does desensitize to some degree. If so, it is not a stretch to believe that violence depicted in video games can provide desensitization as well. Hell, the interactive and participatory nature of video games may make it more effective than passively watching a film.
I have absolutely no problem with shooting someone's head off in GTA, and I got a kick from watching a disembodied eyeball sprite roll down my screen after I blew someone into a thousand gibs in Rise Of The Triad (it was just so silly!). And yet, I can't sit through a documentary on reconstructive surgery without the urge to vomit, simply from the sight of bloody bone and tissue. I am uncomfortable viewing photographs and movies of people being shot, maimed, or otherwise injured, yet it doesn't bother me when someone dies violently in a Hollywood movie. I don't even get into fist-fights in real life, let alone shoot innocent people, but I do it all the time in video games.
The difference? Video games and Hollywood movies are fake, and I know that they are fake. Nobody is actually being hurt. So, I guess you can say I'm desensitized to fake violence. Doctors and military personel, though... they are desensitized to REAL violence/disfigurement/injury. If, as the pundits argue, being desensitized to violence makes you a danger to society, why do we let doctors handle scapels, and actually give automatic rifles to the military?
Clearly, there's more to the story than just being "desensitized." For one thing, the person has to have a desire to cause violence in the first place. They also have to have enough of a lack of empathy (or the ability to divorce empathy from your actions) to be "okay" about hurting someone. When a doctor cuts into you to, say, perform heart surgery, he's not trying to hurt you, he's doing the opposite. And, let me tell you, empathy goes right out the door when the person you're supposed to feel empathy towards is trying to kill you.
Frankly, if the pundits want an arguement against "violent" video games, they should be arguing about the games that don't have blood and gore. For example, I can stab someone through the stomach with a sword in Soul Calibur, but they don't bleed; in fact, an injury which would be fatal in real life won't even make the victim bend over in pain, they just get back up and keep fighting. (Since TFA mentioned 20% of the violent games having "aggressiveness or violence... directed toward women," I'll offer Soul Calibur as an example on their behalf. But in all fairness, those women are trying to kick my ass, too, so it's mutual.)
It is certainly possible that being interactive could make video games more effective than movies at desensitizing people to fake violence. If somebody invented a video game where you can interactively kill real people, I would be entirely against it. (Wanna play a round of Ender's Game, anyone?)
But saying that video games desensitize kids to actual violence doesn't match the evidence that I've observed in my own life. And, frankly, my own observations are far more "scientific" and "credible" than anything they mention in the article. (Playing an intense video game raises adrenaline levels, increases blood pressure, and causes rapid breathing? How horrible, the children are in danger! But then... so does a really intense championship game of chess, or competing in a spelling bee, or reading a scary story... not to mention getting off your duff and doing some excercise. Hell, my pulse has gone up a little bit just from being so focused on tearing down this stupid article.)
P.S. AVIDS (Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrom) is even stupider than "killologist;" at least killologist means what it's supposed to mean (someone who studies, uh, killing people?). If the kids are acquiring a deficiency in their "immunity" to viole
"Nintendo's online strategy seems questionable, making connectivity completely dependent on the options offered by individual games, but the trade-off is that it's simple enough for practically anyone to make use of."
Questionable how? What does that even mean? Because the way I read that sentence, it's a completely pointless jab at Nintendo. It seems to imply that because this doesn't enable voice chat for every single game or come complete with an online matchup room or something, it's suddenly a "questionable" strategy.
I'm not sure what the article summary is trying to get at, either, unless they are referring to this paragraph from TFA:
And from there you're free to race against anyone you like. You can choose to go against your friends, your rivals, random local players and any ol' person anywhere on the world. Of course, the details will vary from game to game, but Nintendo has definitely delivered on its promise to make the connection process painless.
How shocking! Could this mean that the process of playing online might be different in Animal Crossing, compared to Mario Kart? That the mechanism for matching players (for example, by skill, geographic area, etc.) might be different between games? That Future Game X might have some cool feature that Nintendo didn't anticipate? Oh, the humanity!!
I can see how you might be disappointed. Clearly, Nintendo should have thought of every future multiplayer feature possible and put support for that in their online service, rather than allowing developers to do just about anything they want with generic TCP/IP connections. How inconsiderate of Nintendo, forcing game developers to write code for themselves! Bad Nintendo, you'll get no supper tonight!
Now that I think about it, I guess I do know what the summary is whining about: they wanted Nintendo to make a free equivalent of Xbox Live, with all its bells and whistles, and now they're pouting because they won't get it. I guess we'll all just have to suck it up and learn to live with their free global gaming service.
The modern game-reviewing system isn't like judging a theatrical play based on the quality of the costumes and stage design—"quality" implies fitness for a purpose. Rather, it's like judging it based on how many sequins and frills the costumes have, regardless of whether or not sequins and frills add to or detract from the work as a whole.
Graphics have their place—and that place is right next to sound, story, and gameplay (among others), on the shelf labelled, "Elements for Communicating Ideas in Video Games."
A lot of people—gamers, reviewers, and developers alike—don't seem to realize that, as with all media, each aspect of video games should be fashioned to work towards the whole, to emphasize the main focus of the game. More polygons is not always a good thing.
If your game is trying to communicate a dark, gritty sci-fi battle between humans and aliens, the guns should not make a sound like children playing when it fires: the cheerful sound effect would work against the mood you are trying to create.
If your game is trying to convey a sense of the freedom to explore an environment, there should not be invisible barriers blocking off certain parts of the map: those barriers work against the sense of freedom you are trying to create.
If your game is trying to give the player a sense of simplicity and lack of stress, complex models and textures are unnecessary, inappropriate, and counter-productive: the visual complexity of the scene would clash with the simplicity of the game's design. Likewise, a complicated and esoteric user interface would detract from the main theme.
On the other hand, if you are trying to portray a battlefield spanning miles in every direction, to give the player a sense that each and every one of the soldiers was an individual with his own life and family, it would work for the game's design to have the graphics processing power to render each soldier in detail, and to give each soldier his own unique face.
Graphics are just one of many possible tools at the developer's disposal—and not necessarily the most important one. Images are very useful for communicating information to a player, but sound can be much more effective to create a certain mood or ambience. To put so much emphasis on graphics, as many people are prone to do nowadays, is to discount the other elements which make a game good.
The advance of graphics technology is good, because it expands the possibilities available to the developer, just as oil paint offered new possibilities to the Renaissance painter. However, the expectations (even demands) of consumers for every game to have high-poly, high-res, bump-mapped, anisotropic, super-complex graphics is ridiculous. Most video games today are the modern-day equivalent of the colosseum: give the mob what they want to see—more, bigger, faster, bloodier—and they will give you their coin.
n. a musical performance group that produces music which cannot be reliably distinguished from a $30 electronic piano keyboard's pre-programmed music samples.
This is the result, and an indication, of a socialist attitude prevalent throughout the world.
Namely, the idea that "Other people are responsible for knowing what themes I do and do not approve of my child being exposed to, and for acting to enforce my will, even if it will cost everybody extra taxes to enforce the violent video games ban to minors."
Another prevalent idea: "Other people are responsible for my actions, and for preventing me from being exposed to any games which might give me the idea of shooting someone, even if it will cost them legitimate sales to moral citizens."
Both of those ideas are special cases of this idea: "Because individuals are irrelevant next to 'society,' no individual is capable of making his own decisions or for furthering his own purpose; he can only act as one small gear in the machine of 'society.' Therefore, I cannot be responsible for thinking or acting for myself; instead 'society' (i.e. everybody else except me) must think and act for me."
Such an idea is, of course, a fundamental premise of socialism (including both fascism and communism).
The fallacy is that 'society' is nothing more than a set of individuals, and as such has no special rights or powers to do anything itself. The 'will' of 'society' is only the will of its most vocal members. As such, socialism is yet another mechanism for subjugating the sheep to the wolves.
Returning to parents: because some parents believe that they are powerless to prevent their children from buying games they do not approve of, their only course of action is to cry out for 'society' to do it for them. And yet, by giving 'society' the responsibility of protecting their children, they give up the chance to make sure, through their own action, that their children are properly protected.
At this point in history, they have reason to expect that 'society' should look after their children; after all, 'society' will provide the parents with food and shelter even if they don't work (via welfare checks, for example), so why shouldn't 'society' babysit their children, too? You say that 'society' doesn't have any money itself, that welfare checks are actually money confiscated from other individuals? Don't be absurd, everybody knows that individuals are powerless to think, act, or make money for themselves!
Nintendo wants to be number 1 not by beating the competition, but rather by not being in the same category as they are.
I think it's more like this:
Nintendo wants to win being the smart, nice, fairly attractive brunette that ends up in a meaningful, committed relationship with someone who shares a mutual love; Sony and Microsoft are the false-blond sluts with breast implants and whoreish outfits trying to get the attention of any slobbering sack of testosterone who walks by, and end up married with 2 kids to a deadbeat dad (because she got pregnant), collecting welfare checks to support her own drinking habit.
Put another way:
Nintendo wants to ensure a robust future for the video game market (and their own relevence to that market) by actually competing via flexible and innovative hardware and software; Sony and Microsoft want to milk whatever fad is popular until the market runs dry.
Put another way:
Nintendo is about games, and wants, nay, needs, a sustainable and robust revenue stream from the game market, and is acting to maintain and expand that market; Sony and Microsoft are about consumer electronics and computer software respectively, and are only in the games market to make as much money as they can before their policies run the market aground.
I mean really how long could you actually teach intelligent design in a science class? I would think it would go like this: "One theory is that God has directed evolution along its current course.:" There, thats it, you're done.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow down there, Tiger!
First of all, you mispelled "FSM" as "God".
Second, there are plenty of things you could tell those gullible little tykes, for example the fact that pirates are irreducibly complex (I mean, hello? Look at the eyepatch! That's what I call a self-evident truth, baby!), and therefore must have been created in their present form by His noodly appendage. Also: you can show the graph of global warming vs. pirate population.
Then you could make the students write about their favorite pasta, and how the existence of said pasta supports the 'theory' of ID. (Well it's not really a 'theory', because there is a metric tonne of empirical evidence to support it (see graph, mentioned above), so it's more like a fact! Yeah!)
That ought to stall them for a good half-hour, then you can let them out of class early while you think of more stuff to 'teach' tomorrow, and read another chapter of your romance novel and ponder why your own life is so unsatisfying!
I have no idea what methods you could use to teach it to students under the age of 15, though. You don't want to overload their precious littly brains with all that learning!
Where will I be able to I walk in to a GameStop store and pick one up? Or how will GPH, the manufacturer of the GP2X system, manage to convince a million people to order one online, especially given that many parents are extremely averse to ordering products online even when the son or daughter has enough cash to pay for the product?
You won't, and they won't. At least not at this point in the game. The stage isn't set for a "mass adoption" of the GP2X by chain retailers and "average Joe" gamers. The risk/benefit ratio is too high for them; the current model of a handful of large, well-known corporations battling it out suits them just fine. Why make it more complicated by throwing in some Korean company that barely anyone has heard of, with a product that might not sell?
Homebrew developers, on the other hand, have a lot to gain: namely, an inexpensive handheld built for homebrew, with a free dev kit, commodity parts (stardard SD cards, AA batteries [even rechargeable from what I hear], USB 2.0 interface), and an already-strong homebrew community (thanks to the success of the GP2X's predecessor, GP32). And homebrew developers are already more keen to use the Internet and other non-mainstream channels to buy, for example, GBA flash carts and other dongles that the Big Guys probably wish did not exist.
In short, GamePark Holdings is putting their money on the homebrew market to pave the way to greater mainstream acceptance. And it can't hurt that the GP2X doubles (or triples...) as a media player and e-book reader, without having to convert everything to some esoteric file format, at a price at least $50 lower than the PSP.
Don't forget to keep an eye out for some of these "obvious" candidates for the new Alliance race:
Azjol-Nerubians - Plot: "Those creepy giant spider guys are back with a vengeance!" Pros: Extra item slots for stat-enhancing leggings and boots! Cons: hands are always sticky; must eat any player you cyber with.
Centaur - Plot: "Joined the Alliance to get back at those goddamn cow guys." Pros: Is like having a mount from level 1! Cons: bank space keeps filling up with salt lick; random strangers right-clicking on you and riding you from the auction house to the forge and back.
Sheep Critters - Plot: "Bah ram teh Horde!!1" Pros: free [Wool Cloth]x20 every 2 weeks; racial ability: explode! Cons: Afflicted with fear effect whenever you are within 10 yards of a dwarven player or NPC; racial ability requires 20 clicks on the icon, yet does no damage to nearby enemies.
Blood Trolls - Plot: "Thrall stole mah mojo, an' Ah muss get 'um back, mon!" Pros: Tusks!...? Cons: look exactly like 'classic' Trolls with different skin and hair colors; low stamina attribute due to acute mojo deficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if Mr. Ebert expects expects films to be viewable in their original media in 500 years. What with periodically-changing film sizes and speeds, and now digital video codecs, Ebert's own favorite art form doesn't seem particularly "eternal" either. In fact, just like video games, the only ways to appreciate old films are to 1) preserve the associated film player, or 2) convert the film to the new format. Sure, you could bust open the film reel, hold it up to a light, and look at it frame by frame, but that goes against the artist's intended viewing scenario, something Ebert considers extremely important.
Perhaps Ebert realizes all this, but thinks that the contents of the film (if not the physical medium) is safe from the ravages of time. After all, there are works 100 years old which can be enjoyed by film buffs even to this day!
Mr. Ebert might notice other points where video games are plainly different and not-at-all-identical to film:
Which brings me to my point: does Ebert intentionally ignore the obvious similarities between film and video games, or is he simply too ignorant of the history of video games to see them in the first place?
the Revolution will in essence be an evolution of the GameCube hardware.
For the armchair developers out there, this is a good thing. The more similarity between the Gamecube and the Revolution in terms of architecture, the more quickly development studios can get the hang of it and start putting out some really interesting games.
Every time a new console with a different architecture comes out, the studios have to start back at square one, and learn the intricacies of the new hardware. After a couple years of working with the system, the studio has built up their own custom library/engine to handle the basics, and they have learned several tricks for squeezing that extra "oomph" out of the hardware. This is why games that come out several years after the console often look, sound, and feel much better than lauch titles, even though they are using the exact same hardware. Compare, for example, Ocarina of Time with Majora's Mask on the N64: They both use the same hardware, and MM is obviously based on OoT's engine. But because MM didn't have to reinvent the wheel, the developers were freed to create an intriguing, even beautiful, experience.
So if the Revolution's architecture is mostly a beefed-up Gamecube, studios should be able to quickly adapt their libraries to work on the Revolution, so they can spend less time worrying about memory management and polygon-pushing, and more time creating interesting ways to use the new controller. Nintendo, by using the Gamecube architecture as a base, has essentially given studios 5 retroactive years of experience with the Revolution devkits, and the launch titles should be must more interesting as a result.
It is not groundbreaking until you can use a flask of oil to light your head on fire and proceed to head-butt a troll. There might not be much tactical benefit to that maneuver, but until that style of actions can be implemented, Nethack cannot be groundbreaking.
If you're saying what I think you're saying... well, you have rather high expectations, don't you?
You say Nethack cannot be groundbreaking at all, unless you have total and complete freedom of action, and arbitrary combinations of objects interact realistically? Do you realize that what you are asking for is a perfect, interactive simulation of physical reality, a task which is downright impossible? (To fulfill your criterion of total and arbitrary simulation of reality, the simulation would have to be able to simulate itself in perfect detail, including the ability to simulate itself, so that you would have an infinite number of possible sub-simulations.)
Here are some other things you can't do in nethack. I guess the developers had better start working on them if they want to break any ground before our sun dies out and the surface of the Earth freezes over:
* Play tennis with the NPC shopkeeps on the weekends.
* Form a monopoly over the growing industry of narcotics trafficking.
* Construct a robotic army to do your bidding.
* Divert a river into the cavern, drowning the monsters.
* Invent an antimatter propulsion system, use it to build an interstellar vehicle, and then pilot it to Alpha Centauri.
* Post absurd comments on an online news page.
* Paint a mural detailing your own epic adventures in mural-painting.
* Persuade the enemies to attack you with pillows instead of real weapons.
* Own and run a lingerie store.
* Create an artificial protein structure with possible medical uses.
* Practice tai chi.
* Create and play a text-based dungeon crawler equally as complex as the game you are creating it in.
Loving to play games doesn't necessarily mean you are good at creating games. And it's not just this way with games.
Just because someone liked Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies doesn't mean that they could have done a good job directing them. And that tubby, dancing, shirtless football fan in the 5th row could not replace his favorite team's quarterback with a moment's notice. And, unfortunately, just because it's fun to hear about some new scientific discovery, doesn't mean you could have discovered it yourself.
But that doesn't mean that there is a negative correlation, i.e. "no one who is interested in something has skill in it". Evidence suggests otherwise. Peter Jackson obviously has great interest in film, or he wouldn't be directing. Most of the best video game creators have a lot of interest in video games, too.
I'd summarize the situation like this:
So, looking at video games:
There is something that the great creators have, which the ordinary fans don't have. Let's call it creativity. The article says that creativity isn't being taught in game-design degree programs, and so you should get a liberal arts degree instead. But if creativity isn't being taught to game-design students, that doesn't mean that it cannot possibly be taught.
I myself am working towards an AAS in 3d Computer Animation, and there has been a very heavy artistic emphasis; some of the required courses are photography, acting, film appreciation, and sculpture. There is another degree program entitled "3d Computer Graphics Programming", which covers the more technical aspect, and is lighter on the "artsy fartsy" stuff; some of the required courses are C programming, data structures, and OpenGL programming. There are several classes that overlap between the two programs, though, and thus interaction and collaboration between the two types of students.
So it seems to me that the problem is not that the game degree program is mostly technical. The problem is that there is no corresponding art-focused program. What they should do is rename the technical program into game engineering, and create a new program, the true game design degree program. Games do need code monkeys, but they also need prima donna artistes. If you only have the one, you get tech demos. If you only have the other, you get paint splatters and jars of urine.
But if you have both... then, you get truly great stuff: tech demos where you make paint splatters and jars of urine using a built-in fluid dynamics engine!
Uhuh, so you're suggesting that you receive no benefit from there being a fresh batch of teenagers entering the workforce every year.
If I had suggested such a thing, it would have been a foolish and unprovable claim. It would also be foolish to suggest, as you are doing, that teenagers are entering the workforce to provide some intangible benefit to "society". They are already being compensated for the benefit that they provide.
If the parents do a good job, they too are rewarded for their years of labor spent raising a child: both from the satisfaction of a "job well done" continuing the species and their own genes, and from emotional and material support in their old age.
Point out the person who is providing a service to me, but whom is not being paid for that service, and I will pay him in proportion to the services rendered. But don't expect me to give my money to nameless strangers so they can collect a second paycheck, nor to pay for services provided to people I have never even met.
We all enjoy the benefits of scientific discoveries and, as any mathematician will tell you, its a game for the young.
At what point did I suggest that humanity should stop breeding? Humanity has had quite a lot of success makin' babies without everyone else paying for the diapers afterwards; I see no reason why people would suddenly change their mating habits in response to the government abstaining (no pun intended) from trying to re-shape society.
We all enjoy the benefits of discoveries, yes, but we also compensate the discoverer—or, at least, such would be the case with a functional patent system. Right now, there are quite a few people making fortunes from other people's work (something which closely resembles what you are proposing, in fact). But that's another issue entirely.
Maybe someday we'll reverse the aging process and the effect children have on society will become negative, but until then we can either continue our hand-off, see no evil, hear no evil approach to introducing children to society or we can encourage parents to utilize the services of a professional child carer - and no, I'm not talking about a school teacher!
I'm not sure where you got the idea that all parents are perpetuating some great crime against each generation of infants, but I can assure you that there exist some parents who actually do a decent job of raising kids on their own.
Of course, there are bad parents, too—people who, in fairness, shouldn't have tried to raise children. But I take issue with your idea of taxing everyone, including the good parents, to pay for the mistakes of a few. You talk about the current system as a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach—what, then, do you call it when the government steps in and says, "You've done something bad, and that was unfortunate. But we'll take care of it. Don't you worry your little head. There's no need for you to change."
I'd also like to make clear that there is a major difference between encouraging certain parents to use child care and mandating that all parents use child care. One is optional, a mere suggestion of possible benefit. The other is an order, backed by threat of imprisonment and other forms of physical force. (I am not saying that the government will send the army to your door if you don't pay taxes one year; but a tax is a law, and a law is ultimately supported by the government's ability to enforce it through physical force.)
As much as I hate to admit it, children are a public good. They should be supported by taxes.
(I really shouldn't feed the trolls, but this one is a little too good to pass up.)
Your plan is really quite fascinating, but it has a couple little kinks that will have to be worked out before you put it before Congress/Parliament/etc.:
1. It is inherently unfair. Suppose Citizen A is a single, employed man. Citizen B is an unemployed, "deadbeat dad" with 6 children. Why should Citizen A be forced to pay a monetary fine because Citizen B doesn't want to wear a condom during sex with his wife/girlfriend/partner/whore? Why should the conseqences of Citizen B's actions be paid for by everyone else? Should we also start paying for each others' car insurance, so that Citizen B isn't inconvenienced when he causes $20,000 in property damage when he tries to drive himself home after a night of drinking?
2. It is inherently unwise. Would you actually want your children to be raised or even paid-for by the government? Aside from such Brave New World-esque concerns as brainwashing ("Don't worry Senator, in 6 years when you run for President, you'll have enough 'supporters' to carry you through in 7 key states; I'll see to that! *evil laughter, thunder sounds*"), there is the more practical concern of money—in particular, the taking of money and flushing it down the toilet via a monolithic bureaucracy which spends 30-40% of the taxes maintaining itself, instead of supporting the children.
3. It is based on false assumptions. You say that children are a "public good". Is my life enriched because the couple next-door had a couple brats who scream and shout at all hours when I'm trying to sleep? Is your child's life enriched when she has to be crammed into a classroom with 40 other kids because there aren't enough teachers to handle them all? Children are not a public good, nor are they a public responsibility. Both the benefit and the responsibility of raising children are private, belonging only to those individuals who know and care for the children (parents, relatives, etc.).
Don't worry, though; I'm sure if you fix these small problems in your plan, it will be workable.
Err.. hrmm.. well, no, it looks like your plan would be quite non-existent then. Sorry if I let the air out of your balloon.
Slow framerates are not relevant to the discussion of innovative controls, nor are your own difficulties in finding objectives. Your third point has some modicum of merit, but you seem to forget that the N64 controller had only one control stick, while the Xbox had two; it would be impossible for Goldeneye to control both movement and aiming with control sticks... using only one controller. (I will also point out that, with some skill, a player could use the C buttons to aim while moving with pretty good results, certainly good enough for those situations where you must run and shoot at people above/below you.)
But, seeing as how Rareware not only anticipated but delivered a two-stick control scheme (using two N64 controllers, one per hand) for a first-person shooter 4 years before Halo, I don't see how Halo can support any sort of claim to innovation in controls in that regard. Progress or refinement, possibly, but not innovation. Even Goldeneye is not so much innovative as it is a predictable successor to Turok.
It would seem rather silly to have TWO branches of portables, one of which seems very much a superset of the other one. And I'd hate to have to buy both portables and their respective games, from now on.
[WARNING: SARCASM DETECTED]
Very true. It's also silly to have so many branches of cars. SUVs, trucks, and small cars... it's all so confusing! They should just make one type of car so we wouldn't have to decide. After all, everybody has the same needs and budgets, right?
P.S. What's up with computer manufacturers offering fast, expensive PCs alongside slower but cheaper PCs? The expensive PCs can do everything the cheap ones can, so why wouldn't everyone just buy the most expensive PC on the market?
I'd agree much more with that point of view if it was about music :p
Yeah, everybody knows that disco will never get old!
They don't usually shell out $25 for a new edition of the same book every year, even if it contains corrected typos or a new 1-page introduction by the author. Certainly not en masse, as people do with [sports title] 200X. Fans of a particular book might buy a new copy when their current copy becomes unusable from wear-and-tear (pages falling out, etc.), but games certainly don't become unusable on an annual basis.
Many existing games are as entertaining, if not more entertaining, than the new games, even many years after they were released. If someone is still entertained by a game on the Xbox (for example), why the compulsion to spend money on an Xbox360 and game, which may not be as entertaining? I'm not willing to say that addiction is the only explanation, but they are clearly NOT doing it for simple entertainment.
It used to be called the GPX2, but the name was changed to avoid potential trademark conflicts with a Japanese printer called GPX. The final, official name is GP2X. The domain name and product photo were, for whatever reason, not updated.
The way you said it does make them sound more like a scam, though, and less like a tech startup trying to avoid potential lawsuits. Microsoft likes the way you spin things, and would like to offer you a job in PR.
(Maybe I am assuming maliciousness where ignorance could explain it, but the name change is not a Great Mystery, particularly in this era of magical search engines. If the parent is not purposefully trying to put Gamepark Holding in a bad light, and instead is just dumb or lazy, I sincerely apologize.)
Games teach lots of things, many of them directly applicable to real life. I'm not just talking Elmo's ABCs and other edutainment titles; games can trigger the use of many parts of the brain, building up skills, increasing the rate at which your brain can sort through information, and slow mental deterioration in the elderly.
I've heard (and probably repeated) the half-joke, "Of course video games teach stuff! Tetris taught me how to fit falling blocks together." I guess people laugh because they think that fitting blocks together doesn't have real-world applications. Architects, stonemasons, and engineers (among others) would, I imagine, beg to differ. Do you think that after playing so much Tetris, someone wouldn't be at least slightly more adept at fitting shaped objects together? It sure comes in handy when you're trying to assemble cheap boxed furniture, trying to figure out how tab A goes into slot B without covering up hole C, into which you're supposed to put peg D.
Similar, perhaps less-apparent examples can be found in other genres:
- RTS: Managing multiple groups of units to accomplish several sub-goals towards an ultimate goal. (Even a rank amateur should know that you can't send the same group of units into every battle without suffering some losses; so, why does the pointy-haired boss keep loading you up with big project after big project?)
- Racing: Handling different types and weights of car and avoiding obstacles without spinning out. (Going around a bend? Better slow down. Stuck in a dead-end? You may have to perform a three-point turn-around to get pointed in the direction you want to go.)
- FPS: Using different weapons/tools to most effectively eliminate enemies/problems. (Don't waste all your rockets on the imps, you'll need them for the boss. Programming language X doesn't have a very good string-parsing library? Try language Y.)
And so on...
Soldiers in World War II didn't all have eyes with built-in film grain.... Games should try to be games, not try to be films.
The goal of games is not necessarily to simulate reality at all, just as the goal of painting, photography, and film is not necessarily to accurately show events as they occurred. There will always be non-realistic (i.e. stylized) depictions in any field of art, and that is not a bad thing at all.
Whether or not soldiers in WWII saw everything through film grain is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it enhances or diminishes the theme of the game. The more tools available to artists, the better.
You could either vote for the "tax and spend" Liberals, or the "spend" Republicans.
Not to imply that any of them are feasible, but there are other alternatives, including political activism, meeting with your representatives, and running for office yourself (or supporting an independent candidate who you agree with).
And of course, there is America's most popular option, which is to simply not vote at all. Viva la apatia?
That's because Americans love puppies, of course! Everybody loves puppies, hence the amazing sales figures for Nintendogs worldwide!
I have to say though, I'm really looking forward to the inevitable Nintencats! Picture this:
I don't think our youth have become connected to video games so much that they will choose a simulation over the real thing.
EA Sports would care to disagree with you on that one, "Tubby." (I kid, I kid.)
Well the article is pretty devoid of useful or interesting information, besides implying that Bioware has the names and addresses of all its customers, so I'll have to create some interest of my own.
*clears throat*
How does Bioware make a community work?
<spiteful>Well, it's certainly not by letting Linux and Mac users create their own content!</spite>
*grumble grumble*
Yeah, I know they did better than most by having even clients/servers for Linux and Mac, but NWN without a content editor is like Quake without multiplayer — its replay value has dropped a thousand-fold. (Hell, I could barely stand to play through the original campaign the first time—BioWare is in more desperate need of quality content creators than they are willing to admit!)
And, yeah, I know there are such open-source utilities as neveredit, but third-party tools don't make Bioware look any more supportive. Last I heard, Bioware wasn't even giving hints about their proprietary package formats, let alone a full specification, so it's all been through reverse engineering.
Interestingly, TFA includes this:
Fans as content creators are another asset. "If you build it, they will build it as well..." Some members want to add to the community in very real and meaningful ways, and some of them possess "mad skillz." "90% of what sustains a community," Watamaniuk stated, "is the community itself. You provide the framework for their work. If fans are there creating content, it means that you don't have to create 100% of the content yourself."
I guess none of the talented artists are using Macs, and none of the talented scripters are using Linux; they are all using Windows, right?
It's still not too late for Bioware to stitch its own self-amputated leg back on. If I had the tools, I would start making content (I am, IMNSHO, both a talented artist and a talented coder) at the drop of a hat.
So the military does in fact believe that visual exposure to violence does desensitize to some degree. If so, it is not a stretch to believe that violence depicted in video games can provide desensitization as well. Hell, the interactive and participatory nature of video games may make it more effective than passively watching a film.
I have absolutely no problem with shooting someone's head off in GTA, and I got a kick from watching a disembodied eyeball sprite roll down my screen after I blew someone into a thousand gibs in Rise Of The Triad (it was just so silly!). And yet, I can't sit through a documentary on reconstructive surgery without the urge to vomit, simply from the sight of bloody bone and tissue. I am uncomfortable viewing photographs and movies of people being shot, maimed, or otherwise injured, yet it doesn't bother me when someone dies violently in a Hollywood movie. I don't even get into fist-fights in real life, let alone shoot innocent people, but I do it all the time in video games.
The difference? Video games and Hollywood movies are fake, and I know that they are fake. Nobody is actually being hurt. So, I guess you can say I'm desensitized to fake violence. Doctors and military personel, though... they are desensitized to REAL violence/disfigurement/injury. If, as the pundits argue, being desensitized to violence makes you a danger to society, why do we let doctors handle scapels, and actually give automatic rifles to the military?
Clearly, there's more to the story than just being "desensitized." For one thing, the person has to have a desire to cause violence in the first place. They also have to have enough of a lack of empathy (or the ability to divorce empathy from your actions) to be "okay" about hurting someone. When a doctor cuts into you to, say, perform heart surgery, he's not trying to hurt you, he's doing the opposite. And, let me tell you, empathy goes right out the door when the person you're supposed to feel empathy towards is trying to kill you.
Frankly, if the pundits want an arguement against "violent" video games, they should be arguing about the games that don't have blood and gore. For example, I can stab someone through the stomach with a sword in Soul Calibur, but they don't bleed; in fact, an injury which would be fatal in real life won't even make the victim bend over in pain, they just get back up and keep fighting. (Since TFA mentioned 20% of the violent games having "aggressiveness or violence... directed toward women," I'll offer Soul Calibur as an example on their behalf. But in all fairness, those women are trying to kick my ass, too, so it's mutual.)
It is certainly possible that being interactive could make video games more effective than movies at desensitizing people to fake violence. If somebody invented a video game where you can interactively kill real people, I would be entirely against it. (Wanna play a round of Ender's Game, anyone?)
But saying that video games desensitize kids to actual violence doesn't match the evidence that I've observed in my own life. And, frankly, my own observations are far more "scientific" and "credible" than anything they mention in the article. (Playing an intense video game raises adrenaline levels, increases blood pressure, and causes rapid breathing? How horrible, the children are in danger! But then... so does a really intense championship game of chess, or competing in a spelling bee, or reading a scary story... not to mention getting off your duff and doing some excercise. Hell, my pulse has gone up a little bit just from being so focused on tearing down this stupid article.)
P.S. AVIDS (Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrom) is even stupider than "killologist;" at least killologist means what it's supposed to mean (someone who studies, uh, killing people?). If the kids are acquiring a deficiency in their "immunity" to viole
Questionable how? What does that even mean? Because the way I read that sentence, it's a completely pointless jab at Nintendo. It seems to imply that because this doesn't enable voice chat for every single game or come complete with an online matchup room or something, it's suddenly a "questionable" strategy.
I'm not sure what the article summary is trying to get at, either, unless they are referring to this paragraph from TFA:
How shocking! Could this mean that the process of playing online might be different in Animal Crossing, compared to Mario Kart? That the mechanism for matching players (for example, by skill, geographic area, etc.) might be different between games? That Future Game X might have some cool feature that Nintendo didn't anticipate? Oh, the humanity!!
I can see how you might be disappointed. Clearly, Nintendo should have thought of every future multiplayer feature possible and put support for that in their online service, rather than allowing developers to do just about anything they want with generic TCP/IP connections. How inconsiderate of Nintendo, forcing game developers to write code for themselves! Bad Nintendo, you'll get no supper tonight!
Now that I think about it, I guess I do know what the summary is whining about: they wanted Nintendo to make a free equivalent of Xbox Live, with all its bells and whistles, and now they're pouting because they won't get it. I guess we'll all just have to suck it up and learn to live with their free global gaming service.
The modern game-reviewing system isn't like judging a theatrical play based on the quality of the costumes and stage design—"quality" implies fitness for a purpose. Rather, it's like judging it based on how many sequins and frills the costumes have, regardless of whether or not sequins and frills add to or detract from the work as a whole.
Graphics have their place—and that place is right next to sound, story, and gameplay (among others), on the shelf labelled, "Elements for Communicating Ideas in Video Games."
A lot of people—gamers, reviewers, and developers alike—don't seem to realize that, as with all media, each aspect of video games should be fashioned to work towards the whole, to emphasize the main focus of the game. More polygons is not always a good thing.
If your game is trying to communicate a dark, gritty sci-fi battle between humans and aliens, the guns should not make a sound like children playing when it fires: the cheerful sound effect would work against the mood you are trying to create.
If your game is trying to convey a sense of the freedom to explore an environment, there should not be invisible barriers blocking off certain parts of the map: those barriers work against the sense of freedom you are trying to create.
If your game is trying to give the player a sense of simplicity and lack of stress, complex models and textures are unnecessary, inappropriate, and counter-productive: the visual complexity of the scene would clash with the simplicity of the game's design. Likewise, a complicated and esoteric user interface would detract from the main theme.
On the other hand, if you are trying to portray a battlefield spanning miles in every direction, to give the player a sense that each and every one of the soldiers was an individual with his own life and family, it would work for the game's design to have the graphics processing power to render each soldier in detail, and to give each soldier his own unique face.
Graphics are just one of many possible tools at the developer's disposal—and not necessarily the most important one. Images are very useful for communicating information to a player, but sound can be much more effective to create a certain mood or ambience. To put so much emphasis on graphics, as many people are prone to do nowadays, is to discount the other elements which make a game good.
The advance of graphics technology is good, because it expands the possibilities available to the developer, just as oil paint offered new possibilities to the Renaissance painter. However, the expectations (even demands) of consumers for every game to have high-poly, high-res, bump-mapped, anisotropic, super-complex graphics is ridiculous. Most video games today are the modern-day equivalent of the colosseum: give the mob what they want to see—more, bigger, faster, bloodier—and they will give you their coin.
Turing band:
n. a musical performance group that produces music which cannot be reliably distinguished from a $30 electronic piano keyboard's pre-programmed music samples.
This is the result, and an indication, of a socialist attitude prevalent throughout the world.
Namely, the idea that "Other people are responsible for knowing what themes I do and do not approve of my child being exposed to, and for acting to enforce my will, even if it will cost everybody extra taxes to enforce the violent video games ban to minors."
Another prevalent idea: "Other people are responsible for my actions, and for preventing me from being exposed to any games which might give me the idea of shooting someone, even if it will cost them legitimate sales to moral citizens."
Both of those ideas are special cases of this idea: "Because individuals are irrelevant next to 'society,' no individual is capable of making his own decisions or for furthering his own purpose; he can only act as one small gear in the machine of 'society.' Therefore, I cannot be responsible for thinking or acting for myself; instead 'society' (i.e. everybody else except me) must think and act for me."
Such an idea is, of course, a fundamental premise of socialism (including both fascism and communism).
The fallacy is that 'society' is nothing more than a set of individuals, and as such has no special rights or powers to do anything itself. The 'will' of 'society' is only the will of its most vocal members. As such, socialism is yet another mechanism for subjugating the sheep to the wolves.
Returning to parents: because some parents believe that they are powerless to prevent their children from buying games they do not approve of, their only course of action is to cry out for 'society' to do it for them. And yet, by giving 'society' the responsibility of protecting their children, they give up the chance to make sure, through their own action, that their children are properly protected.
At this point in history, they have reason to expect that 'society' should look after their children; after all, 'society' will provide the parents with food and shelter even if they don't work (via welfare checks, for example), so why shouldn't 'society' babysit their children, too? You say that 'society' doesn't have any money itself, that welfare checks are actually money confiscated from other individuals? Don't be absurd, everybody knows that individuals are powerless to think, act, or make money for themselves!
Nintendo wants to be number 1 not by beating the competition, but rather by not being in the same category as they are.
I think it's more like this:
Nintendo wants to win being the smart, nice, fairly attractive brunette that ends up in a meaningful, committed relationship with someone who shares a mutual love; Sony and Microsoft are the false-blond sluts with breast implants and whoreish outfits trying to get the attention of any slobbering sack of testosterone who walks by, and end up married with 2 kids to a deadbeat dad (because she got pregnant), collecting welfare checks to support her own drinking habit.
Put another way:
Nintendo wants to ensure a robust future for the video game market (and their own relevence to that market) by actually competing via flexible and innovative hardware and software; Sony and Microsoft want to milk whatever fad is popular until the market runs dry.
Put another way:
Nintendo is about games, and wants, nay, needs, a sustainable and robust revenue stream from the game market, and is acting to maintain and expand that market; Sony and Microsoft are about consumer electronics and computer software respectively, and are only in the games market to make as much money as they can before their policies run the market aground.
I mean really how long could you actually teach intelligent design in a science class? I would think it would go like this: "One theory is that God has directed evolution along its current course.:" There, thats it, you're done.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow down there, Tiger!
First of all, you mispelled "FSM" as "God".
Second, there are plenty of things you could tell those gullible little tykes, for example the fact that pirates are irreducibly complex (I mean, hello? Look at the eyepatch! That's what I call a self-evident truth, baby!), and therefore must have been created in their present form by His noodly appendage. Also: you can show the graph of global warming vs. pirate population.
Then you could make the students write about their favorite pasta, and how the existence of said pasta supports the 'theory' of ID. (Well it's not really a 'theory', because there is a metric tonne of empirical evidence to support it (see graph, mentioned above), so it's more like a fact! Yeah!)
That ought to stall them for a good half-hour, then you can let them out of class early while you think of more stuff to 'teach' tomorrow, and read another chapter of your romance novel and ponder why your own life is so unsatisfying!
I have no idea what methods you could use to teach it to students under the age of 15, though. You don't want to overload their precious littly brains with all that learning!
Where will I be able to I walk in to a GameStop store and pick one up? Or how will GPH, the manufacturer of the GP2X system, manage to convince a million people to order one online, especially given that many parents are extremely averse to ordering products online even when the son or daughter has enough cash to pay for the product?
You won't, and they won't. At least not at this point in the game. The stage isn't set for a "mass adoption" of the GP2X by chain retailers and "average Joe" gamers. The risk/benefit ratio is too high for them; the current model of a handful of large, well-known corporations battling it out suits them just fine. Why make it more complicated by throwing in some Korean company that barely anyone has heard of, with a product that might not sell?
Homebrew developers, on the other hand, have a lot to gain: namely, an inexpensive handheld built for homebrew, with a free dev kit, commodity parts (stardard SD cards, AA batteries [even rechargeable from what I hear], USB 2.0 interface), and an already-strong homebrew community (thanks to the success of the GP2X's predecessor, GP32). And homebrew developers are already more keen to use the Internet and other non-mainstream channels to buy, for example, GBA flash carts and other dongles that the Big Guys probably wish did not exist.
In short, GamePark Holdings is putting their money on the homebrew market to pave the way to greater mainstream acceptance. And it can't hurt that the GP2X doubles (or triples...) as a media player and e-book reader, without having to convert everything to some esoteric file format, at a price at least $50 lower than the PSP.
Don't forget to keep an eye out for some of these "obvious" candidates for the new Alliance race:
Azjol-Nerubians - Plot: "Those creepy giant spider guys are back with a vengeance!" Pros: Extra item slots for stat-enhancing leggings and boots! Cons: hands are always sticky; must eat any player you cyber with.
Centaur - Plot: "Joined the Alliance to get back at those goddamn cow guys." Pros: Is like having a mount from level 1! Cons: bank space keeps filling up with salt lick; random strangers right-clicking on you and riding you from the auction house to the forge and back.
Sheep Critters - Plot: "Bah ram teh Horde!!1" Pros: free [Wool Cloth]x20 every 2 weeks; racial ability: explode! Cons: Afflicted with fear effect whenever you are within 10 yards of a dwarven player or NPC; racial ability requires 20 clicks on the icon, yet does no damage to nearby enemies.
Blood Trolls - Plot: "Thrall stole mah mojo, an' Ah muss get 'um back, mon!" Pros: Tusks!...? Cons: look exactly like 'classic' Trolls with different skin and hair colors; low stamina attribute due to acute mojo deficiency.