While it makes sense in theory, there is a problem.
If you do things like the give loser an advantage, you essentially punish those who are better and make them less "good." What this does is make those who have the actual skill to compete at the top have to get even better to beat the advantages given to the loser. Eventually, those who are really good (or cheating), will get better again, making the advantages have to go up to level things out.
Its not that an unbalance playing field is bad, because if skill counts for nothing, then there is no point in learning. however, its the unfair, unstopible advantages that bug people. I can be the best sniper in the world, but if you can see through the wall I'm hiding behind, my shot doesn't mean a thing because you can sneak up on me and kill me.
Hypothetical:
A child has spent 4 hours in the main room of the house watching TV. The parent walks in the room every 30 minutes for one reason or another, even if just passing through. A parent of any creedence would physically see their child. Now, thats 8 passes through the room in 4 hours. That is 8 chances to turn off the TV if you feel it is wrong.
Why is the child in front of the TV for 4 straight hours? Well, who has said its wrong to do so? Who has encouraged them to do something else? What happened was a parent walked through a room 8 times and did nothing to encourage futher growth in the child. Who is to blame there?
My brother has friends who get 1 hours of TV a day and the parents monitor that, so it is NOT impossible. hard? You bet! Waste of time? Oh yeah.
I'll use an analogy that even a moron can relate to. A dog doesn't know not to go to the bathroom in the house if you don't give him an alternative.
Now then, if a child owns a video game, one of 3 things has happened.
1) The parent purchased it
2) A friend/family member (not a parent) got the game for the child.
3) The child purchased it.
If the parent purchased it, they should have known what they were getting into and looked at the game. Parenting?! What a novel concept!
If someone else purchased it, its harder, yes. But, you can still always set limits. Hell, my dad used to take my only video game (Rampage for the NES) to work with him when I was young, just so I wouldn't play it all day.
If the child purchased it, things get interesting. You need money to buy something. So, if a parent gives a kid money, they're taking a crap shoot. If the child has money of thier own, they've been productive. And remember, these kids still need to have transportation to ge to where they buy the game. Who does that? The kid has a car? Okay, so you trust them with something that weighs half a ton and can go 110 mph and kilsl thousands each year in the USA alone- but not with video games? Thats one twisted child and one warped sense of rality and responcibilty.
Life is a game of choices and oppertunity costs. That is all it is. You pick one thing over another, constantly. We must all make our choices wisely to do well in life. However, we must take the good with the bad. There are VERY few choices in life that, if inccorectly picked, ruin lives irrepribly. I assure you that video games and TV are NOT those choices.
All this comming from a 19 year old gamer who taught himself most of what he knows on his own with the aid of books and TV. How about that?
The difference between the 20's and the 80's was that actors would sign to be exclusive to a particular studio. They could not go anywhere else to make a movie. Period. Thats kind of like when Squaresoft decided to only work with Sony.
You used to see a lot mroe loalty with video game companies and the designers. However, i'm amazed at all the cross-console licesing that is going on. you can pretty much buy the same game for any system these days. Go to a video store and look at what games are not on rival systems, look at the company that made it and see if you see the name of that company on any of the other company's labels. You can still see the loyalty these days, its just not as obvious, especially with sega and atari primary as game developers these days.
I'm not sure what he means there either.
However, I can name some fo the games with the best songs.
Tetris, any Mega Man, Bubble Bobble, All the Sonic the Hedgehogs. That is just to name a few. Mega Man is probibly my top game for music.
I see what you're trying to say, but comparing our beloved video games to football is impossible to do. I've played football as well. Getting injured in football is nothing like getting injured playing video games.
With video games, you can get repetative stress injuries, carpul tunnel syndrom, blisters, but not much else.
In football, you can tear legaments, break bones, rip muscles, get concussions and the like. There are a lot of things that can happen to you in football that can effect every asset of your life. I doubt anyone has ever damaged their spinal cord playing video games (which happened to one of my favorite pro football players).
My point isn't to discriminate against gamers. i am a gamer and see myself as a gamer for life. however, if you do gain weight playing video games, you obviously aren't being active in other areas. Hell, sometimes I'm a shining example of that. But what I am saying is that I think that video games are only something that bring light to a problem. People simply don't care. Its easy to blame video games, so people do. Games are not the problem, socialization IS.
I'm not the most fit guy in the world, no. However, I would just like to say that while you do in fact see a decline in sales and an increase in the fat kids around, I don't think it can be totally blamed on the video game industry.
Video gaming is an amazing market and one that will only increase in the comming years. However, one can really only play for so long each day. When I come back from classes, I play video games for a while to relieve stress, relax and the like. However, come 6-7 PM, I'm tired of it and don't really want to play. If I had enough buddies to play, I'd go back on campus and play football or something. If I lived in a bit less of a college town, where there weren't a billion cars waiting to kill me, I'd ride my mountain bike in a bit more "fun" way that I do. Heh heh.
There are millions of excuses for not going outside, most only semi-legit (like mine). However, I think the biggest reason that kids are getting fat and not going and doing enough outside is their parents. As kids game, parents grow tired and accepting. The stop pushing their kids to go outside. Stop limiting time on games. They then start bringing snacks and such. While the kids do start everything, the parents perpetuate it and it does break into a bit of a nasty cycle.
Anyway, thats my take on it, as a video gamer since 1989.
Slashdot Mirror
While it makes sense in theory, there is a problem. If you do things like the give loser an advantage, you essentially punish those who are better and make them less "good." What this does is make those who have the actual skill to compete at the top have to get even better to beat the advantages given to the loser. Eventually, those who are really good (or cheating), will get better again, making the advantages have to go up to level things out. Its not that an unbalance playing field is bad, because if skill counts for nothing, then there is no point in learning. however, its the unfair, unstopible advantages that bug people. I can be the best sniper in the world, but if you can see through the wall I'm hiding behind, my shot doesn't mean a thing because you can sneak up on me and kill me.
You MUST be kidding. You're actually saying that if you don't fly a plane into a building, you're not a terrorist? Ignorance must be bliss.
Hypothetical: A child has spent 4 hours in the main room of the house watching TV. The parent walks in the room every 30 minutes for one reason or another, even if just passing through. A parent of any creedence would physically see their child. Now, thats 8 passes through the room in 4 hours. That is 8 chances to turn off the TV if you feel it is wrong. Why is the child in front of the TV for 4 straight hours? Well, who has said its wrong to do so? Who has encouraged them to do something else? What happened was a parent walked through a room 8 times and did nothing to encourage futher growth in the child. Who is to blame there? My brother has friends who get 1 hours of TV a day and the parents monitor that, so it is NOT impossible. hard? You bet! Waste of time? Oh yeah. I'll use an analogy that even a moron can relate to. A dog doesn't know not to go to the bathroom in the house if you don't give him an alternative. Now then, if a child owns a video game, one of 3 things has happened. 1) The parent purchased it 2) A friend/family member (not a parent) got the game for the child. 3) The child purchased it. If the parent purchased it, they should have known what they were getting into and looked at the game. Parenting?! What a novel concept! If someone else purchased it, its harder, yes. But, you can still always set limits. Hell, my dad used to take my only video game (Rampage for the NES) to work with him when I was young, just so I wouldn't play it all day. If the child purchased it, things get interesting. You need money to buy something. So, if a parent gives a kid money, they're taking a crap shoot. If the child has money of thier own, they've been productive. And remember, these kids still need to have transportation to ge to where they buy the game. Who does that? The kid has a car? Okay, so you trust them with something that weighs half a ton and can go 110 mph and kilsl thousands each year in the USA alone- but not with video games? Thats one twisted child and one warped sense of rality and responcibilty. Life is a game of choices and oppertunity costs. That is all it is. You pick one thing over another, constantly. We must all make our choices wisely to do well in life. However, we must take the good with the bad. There are VERY few choices in life that, if inccorectly picked, ruin lives irrepribly. I assure you that video games and TV are NOT those choices. All this comming from a 19 year old gamer who taught himself most of what he knows on his own with the aid of books and TV. How about that?
The difference between the 20's and the 80's was that actors would sign to be exclusive to a particular studio. They could not go anywhere else to make a movie. Period. Thats kind of like when Squaresoft decided to only work with Sony. You used to see a lot mroe loalty with video game companies and the designers. However, i'm amazed at all the cross-console licesing that is going on. you can pretty much buy the same game for any system these days. Go to a video store and look at what games are not on rival systems, look at the company that made it and see if you see the name of that company on any of the other company's labels. You can still see the loyalty these days, its just not as obvious, especially with sega and atari primary as game developers these days.
I'm not sure what he means there either. However, I can name some fo the games with the best songs. Tetris, any Mega Man, Bubble Bobble, All the Sonic the Hedgehogs. That is just to name a few. Mega Man is probibly my top game for music.
I see what you're trying to say, but comparing our beloved video games to football is impossible to do. I've played football as well. Getting injured in football is nothing like getting injured playing video games. With video games, you can get repetative stress injuries, carpul tunnel syndrom, blisters, but not much else. In football, you can tear legaments, break bones, rip muscles, get concussions and the like. There are a lot of things that can happen to you in football that can effect every asset of your life. I doubt anyone has ever damaged their spinal cord playing video games (which happened to one of my favorite pro football players). My point isn't to discriminate against gamers. i am a gamer and see myself as a gamer for life. however, if you do gain weight playing video games, you obviously aren't being active in other areas. Hell, sometimes I'm a shining example of that. But what I am saying is that I think that video games are only something that bring light to a problem. People simply don't care. Its easy to blame video games, so people do. Games are not the problem, socialization IS.
I'm not the most fit guy in the world, no. However, I would just like to say that while you do in fact see a decline in sales and an increase in the fat kids around, I don't think it can be totally blamed on the video game industry. Video gaming is an amazing market and one that will only increase in the comming years. However, one can really only play for so long each day. When I come back from classes, I play video games for a while to relieve stress, relax and the like. However, come 6-7 PM, I'm tired of it and don't really want to play. If I had enough buddies to play, I'd go back on campus and play football or something. If I lived in a bit less of a college town, where there weren't a billion cars waiting to kill me, I'd ride my mountain bike in a bit more "fun" way that I do. Heh heh. There are millions of excuses for not going outside, most only semi-legit (like mine). However, I think the biggest reason that kids are getting fat and not going and doing enough outside is their parents. As kids game, parents grow tired and accepting. The stop pushing their kids to go outside. Stop limiting time on games. They then start bringing snacks and such. While the kids do start everything, the parents perpetuate it and it does break into a bit of a nasty cycle. Anyway, thats my take on it, as a video gamer since 1989.