For the gamer who enjoys true competition and high replay value, however, there is no substitute for the online experience.
To some degree, but at the same time, online games can't really offer the same degree of, say, narrative development that single player games can. Not everyone can be an interesting hero (or antihero or whatever) in a MMORPG with thousands of players. Online gaming has its place, but it's not like single player games can't be mature, difficult, and replayable.
Making a game in which the "message" is the primary motivator isn't an issue to me, lots of other things are made that way...
Yup. I actually prefer it when somebody/thing wears their bias on their sleeves -- at least that way you can try to make a judgement as to how self serving what they're telling you is. It's when they try to convince you that what they're telling you is objectively the only rational approach that you need to be on your toes...
The fact that your hourly pay works out to be less than the guys in QA is never mentioned.
I did a stint in QA once, and I saw that happening. I became buddies with one of the audio designers, and for large chunks of the project he would sleep in his soundroom instead of going home and generally work crazy hours. Before long us peons in QA were working crazy hours too -- but we were getting paid doubletime! I felt bad hanging out with the guy when I knew I was getting paid more per hour than he was, even though I was essentially providing unskilled labour compared to him...
Devs got to order from nicer restaurants, though. I'm sure that went a long way towards making up for it./sarc
I still buy AdBusters on occassion, but not as much as I used to; it focuses too much on a hipper-than-thou, "Graphic Design Will Set You Free" mindset these days.
Could CR have sold out and given better reviews in return for "donations?" Sure. Would it help their immediate revenue? You bet. Would it still be credible now, 40 years (whatever) after they came around? Not a chance.
This is my problem with a lot of video game "journalism" -- it just smells like amateur hour most of the time. The standard of writing and actual insight, on the whole, just isn't very high. (As video games grow in mainstream popularity and escape the geek stereotype, hopefully this will change.) News of bribing for positive reviews just doesn't surprise me at all.
"It shows that the RIAA model of distrusting the customer is flawed, and that the people still have some power."
As long as people keep on buying DRMized albums the RIAA model will not only survive but thrive. People do have power, yes, but they have not used it yet -- most people have simply accepted this sort of crap as a fact of life.
As for the statement, I wouldn't attach too much importance to it. Whoever wrote it is clueless (vaporware?) -- probably just a marketing hack.
"I'd be interested to hear any opinions on why Civ 3 might've been a better game than I gave it credit for."
Before I get started, I was/am a big Alpha Centauri fan, but I've barely played it since Civ3 came out. What's so good about it?
-Culture (which you mentioned, but it is GREAT. Managing culture adds a whole new element to balance against your industrial/military needs).
-Resources, both strategic and luxury. While it can be tough if you get shafted in your starting position, nothing beats the satisfaction of out- manouvering a superior rival to get that precious Iron resource. Luxury resources are also THE most important way of preventing your citizins from rioting.
-Neat ICBMs! While they aren't quite as spectacular as the fully upgraded Planet Busters, the ability to attack anywhere on the surface of the planet from anywhere adds tension to the nuclear era.
-Much better air units. The new Civ3 air system (ie giving special orders to units, ie bombing run, recon, air superiority, etc) just feels so much better to me than the old system in AC that treats air units essentially the same as ground units.
-Better scenarios. Try out Civ 3 Conquests -- it's got great scenarios and new modes of play (Capture the Princess, Regicide...)
-Did I say resources yet?
-LOTS more civs to play as. While Civ3 civs might not be quite as unique as AC factions, the differing attributes of each civ (especially after the additions of Conquests), along with the unique units really means that the various civs play differently (AC had this too, but how many factions were there? Not many, even after the expansion).
-TRADE. The trading system in Civ3 is more powerful and flexible.
-The differentiation between Small Wonders (which every civ can build one of) and Great Wonders (which can only be built by one Civ).
-LEADERS! Especially after the addition of Scientific Great Leaders in Conquests. The Military Great Leaders are neat too because they introduce...
-Armies (combining several individual military units), which just kick ass.
-More victory conditions.
-Speaking of victory conditions, Civ3 solved a pet peeve of mine -- the Domination victory condition means you don't need to conquer every single tile on the map, but only a certain percentage of the surface area and population. This is great, because once you have 80% of everything in Civ2 or AC no one can stop you, but you haven't won yet, and getting troops to every last city can be a tedious process.
I could go on. There are some things that were in AC that aren't in Civ3 that really irritate me (for example, I think the planetary assembly or whatever the UN is called in AC is much better than in Civ3, what with the planetary votes). But Civ3 did bring a whole lot new to the table.
"Its a great law - but it would benefit all of us if the Feds made it easier to comply."
How would making it easier to comply benefit anyone besides the telemarketing companies? That industry has acted terribly in the past, and now it's time to pay for that shit reputation. They have no on to blame but themselves.
I think Classical music is definitely the way to go. I'm always pleasantly surprised when I get some while on hold. It's really the only music that won't totally irritate whole segments of the population (well, except for teenage kids who think they're too cool to, y'know, like stuff that isn't being promoted by a huge corporation).
Specifically, I'd go with with mostly Romantic and Classical stuff (Schubert, Shumann, Mozart, Haydn...), although some twentieth century composers would work well too, I think (Rachmaninoff, Copland's folksy stuff).
Jazz standards are probably pretty good too, stuff like Sinatra. The main thing, I think, is to stay away from contemporary pop stuff. You're always going to irritate lots of people that way, because everyone hates at least half of the stuff on the radio.
"As far as the size of the box, I dont think that is an issue for me, personally."
It may not be a problem for you (or for me, either) but it is a problem in Japan, where floorspace is at a premium. That's why the PS2 can stand vertically, and the Gamecube is so tiny. I'm not saying its huge size compared to the other consoles is why the Xbox did so poorly in Japan, but it certainly didn't help.
"...would appear to be in the production and sale of address lists...Seriously, it would be trivial to write a script to generate e-mail adresses..."
Production? Seems like you could do it even easier: just buy some other spammer's CD, then redistribute it yourself. What's the original producer gonna do...sue?
"If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."
That's right, because as we all know, the government and the military *always* act perfectly scrupulously when you give them huge amounts of power that they can excercise without any meaningful oversight. *No* genuinely democratic government should need to run the apparatus of a secret police state, complete with secret government agents, the complete absence of judicial oversight, and a total lack of transparency to the public. *Those are all features of police states, not democratic ones.*
If another party has been dishonest, your remedy shouldn't be to be dishonest back, your remedy should be never to deal with them at all costs.
You know, I really agree with you here, if we're talking about these situations on a case-by-case basis. That would be the ideal situation. And I also agree with you about the importance of trusting whomever you're giving your details to, and the agreement you make by doing that. Like you, I live in Canada. I've given 100% legitimate registrations before, both on the web and in real life. Not too often, but when I have a reasonable belief that they won't bother me too much with the info.
Anyways, where I do disagree with you is:
The agreement on the table is not unreasonable, and doesn't deserve civil disobedience. Save that for times when the agreement is unreasonable.
Again, taken on a case by case basis, you're right -- it doesn't deserve complete cynicism towards and rejection of the agreements you make in these situations. But put these individual cases in the larger context of an advertising saturated society. More and more effort and money is being spent collecting information about us, figuring out where we go, what we like, what we do, and how we spend our money. Overall, it can feel very intrusive. Sometimes I feel like a target. I can't even take a piss in a public washroom without staring at an ad! I don't feel like I have much control over what large organizations know about me, how they collect it, or how they use it. And I also don't think that that sentiment is uncommon.
Is putting in a false address in order to read an article petty? Yeah. Does it accomplish much? No, probably not much. Do I have a chip on my shoulder, concerning my attitude towards these sorts of practices? Yeah, sure. But apparently so do a lot of other people, such as the people who set up and make use of bugmenot.com. Some of the demands corporations (and governments, and other powerful organizations) are making today *are* unreasonable, if you ask me.
I installed AdBlock on Firefox a little while ago. I love it.
Bogus details is like pirating shareware. It isn't hard, it isn't murder, but it isn't right, either.
Hm, I don't know. Look at the whole picture: what safeguards are there that all of these businesses actually follow their privacy statements? I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't at least uncomfortably common for companies to sell these lists, thinking "Oh, how will they ever know it was us?" And unless you give a different e-mail address to each registration place and then keep track of where spam is sent to, they're right: you can't know who did it. And besides, everyone on the internet has probably been subjected to abusive and intrusive marketing in some form, such as spam, spyware, pop-ups...
It seems to me that if you expect people to be held to a strict standard of honesty in their relationship with companies involved in marketing, you have to demand that same standard of honesty from the companies. That is a responsibility marketing companies have, imho, not lived up to, and you can't be surprised when people grow suspicious of them.
It's more a matter that there is no point them having my details. What do they gain?
Information. Information about their customers: who is reading their stuff, how old they are, how much money they probably make...in other words, information that defines you as a certain type of consumer who spends their money in a certain way.
Slashdot Mirror
To some degree, but at the same time, online games can't really offer the same degree of, say, narrative development that single player games can. Not everyone can be an interesting hero (or antihero or whatever) in a MMORPG with thousands of players. Online gaming has its place, but it's not like single player games can't be mature, difficult, and replayable.
Yup. I actually prefer it when somebody/thing wears their bias on their sleeves -- at least that way you can try to make a judgement as to how self serving what they're telling you is. It's when they try to convince you that what they're telling you is objectively the only rational approach that you need to be on your toes...
Ideology pulled the same trick. If I hear about its death one more time I'm gonna barf.
I did a stint in QA once, and I saw that happening. I became buddies with one of the audio designers, and for large chunks of the project he would sleep in his soundroom instead of going home and generally work crazy hours. Before long us peons in QA were working crazy hours too -- but we were getting paid doubletime! I felt bad hanging out with the guy when I knew I was getting paid more per hour than he was, even though I was essentially providing unskilled labour compared to him...
Devs got to order from nicer restaurants, though. I'm sure that went a long way towards making up for it. /sarc
I still buy AdBusters on occassion, but not as much as I used to; it focuses too much on a hipper-than-thou, "Graphic Design Will Set You Free" mindset these days.
...but I'm not sure exactly what...
This is my problem with a lot of video game "journalism" -- it just smells like amateur hour most of the time. The standard of writing and actual insight, on the whole, just isn't very high. (As video games grow in mainstream popularity and escape the geek stereotype, hopefully this will change.) News of bribing for positive reviews just doesn't surprise me at all.
(puts on Erwartung)
Well, duh! What's the news? Hasn't everyone who listens to classical music known this for over 80 years?
But is it proactive?
So do I. ;) I'm just a cynic, and I think most people are far too apathetic about their rights and the cultural environment they live in.
As long as people keep on buying DRMized albums the RIAA model will not only survive but thrive. People do have power, yes, but they have not used it yet -- most people have simply accepted this sort of crap as a fact of life.
As for the statement, I wouldn't attach too much importance to it. Whoever wrote it is clueless (vaporware?) -- probably just a marketing hack.
Since when was anyone accusing them of using software that doesn't exist? Wouldn't we all be happy if all new spyware turned out to be vaporware?
Before I get started, I was/am a big Alpha Centauri fan, but I've barely played it since Civ3 came out. What's so good about it?
-Culture (which you mentioned, but it is GREAT. Managing culture adds a whole new element to balance against your industrial/military needs).
-Resources, both strategic and luxury. While it can be tough if you get shafted in your starting position, nothing beats the satisfaction of out- manouvering a superior rival to get that precious Iron resource. Luxury resources are also THE most important way of preventing your citizins from rioting.
-Neat ICBMs! While they aren't quite as spectacular as the fully upgraded Planet Busters, the ability to attack anywhere on the surface of the planet from anywhere adds tension to the nuclear era.
-Much better air units. The new Civ3 air system (ie giving special orders to units, ie bombing run, recon, air superiority, etc) just feels so much better to me than the old system in AC that treats air units essentially the same as ground units.
-Better scenarios. Try out Civ 3 Conquests -- it's got great scenarios and new modes of play (Capture the Princess, Regicide...)
-Did I say resources yet?
-LOTS more civs to play as. While Civ3 civs might not be quite as unique as AC factions, the differing attributes of each civ (especially after the additions of Conquests), along with the unique units really means that the various civs play differently (AC had this too, but how many factions were there? Not many, even after the expansion).
-TRADE. The trading system in Civ3 is more powerful and flexible.
-The differentiation between Small Wonders (which every civ can build one of) and Great Wonders (which can only be built by one Civ).
-LEADERS! Especially after the addition of Scientific Great Leaders in Conquests. The Military Great Leaders are neat too because they introduce...
-Armies (combining several individual military units), which just kick ass.
-More victory conditions.
-Speaking of victory conditions, Civ3 solved a pet peeve of mine -- the Domination victory condition means you don't need to conquer every single tile on the map, but only a certain percentage of the surface area and population. This is great, because once you have 80% of everything in Civ2 or AC no one can stop you, but you haven't won yet, and getting troops to every last city can be a tedious process.
I could go on. There are some things that were in AC that aren't in Civ3 that really irritate me (for example, I think the planetary assembly or whatever the UN is called in AC is much better than in Civ3, what with the planetary votes). But Civ3 did bring a whole lot new to the table.
How would making it easier to comply benefit anyone besides the telemarketing companies? That industry has acted terribly in the past, and now it's time to pay for that shit reputation. They have no on to blame but themselves.
Specifically, I'd go with with mostly Romantic and Classical stuff (Schubert, Shumann, Mozart, Haydn...), although some twentieth century composers would work well too, I think (Rachmaninoff, Copland's folksy stuff).
Jazz standards are probably pretty good too, stuff like Sinatra. The main thing, I think, is to stay away from contemporary pop stuff. You're always going to irritate lots of people that way, because everyone hates at least half of the stuff on the radio.
Yeah, and go get a haircut, you hippies!
It may not be a problem for you (or for me, either) but it is a problem in Japan, where floorspace is at a premium. That's why the PS2 can stand vertically, and the Gamecube is so tiny. I'm not saying its huge size compared to the other consoles is why the Xbox did so poorly in Japan, but it certainly didn't help.
Okay, I'm sure everyone has seen this quote a million times, but it seems appropriate here:
"Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither."-T. Jefferson
I dunno, it makes sense in a twisted sort of way that the people who are stupid enough to buy stuff from spam are the same people who send it out.
Although, yeah, the whole idea of spamming in order to sell actual Spam is pretty funny.
Production? Seems like you could do it even easier: just buy some other spammer's CD, then redistribute it yourself. What's the original producer gonna do...sue?
That's right, because as we all know, the government and the military *always* act perfectly scrupulously when you give them huge amounts of power that they can excercise without any meaningful oversight. *No* genuinely democratic government should need to run the apparatus of a secret police state, complete with secret government agents, the complete absence of judicial oversight, and a total lack of transparency to the public. *Those are all features of police states, not democratic ones.*
You know, I really agree with you here, if we're talking about these situations on a case-by-case basis. That would be the ideal situation. And I also agree with you about the importance of trusting whomever you're giving your details to, and the agreement you make by doing that. Like you, I live in Canada. I've given 100% legitimate registrations before, both on the web and in real life. Not too often, but when I have a reasonable belief that they won't bother me too much with the info.
Anyways, where I do disagree with you is:
The agreement on the table is not unreasonable, and doesn't deserve civil disobedience. Save that for times when the agreement is unreasonable.
Again, taken on a case by case basis, you're right -- it doesn't deserve complete cynicism towards and rejection of the agreements you make in these situations. But put these individual cases in the larger context of an advertising saturated society. More and more effort and money is being spent collecting information about us, figuring out where we go, what we like, what we do, and how we spend our money. Overall, it can feel very intrusive. Sometimes I feel like a target. I can't even take a piss in a public washroom without staring at an ad! I don't feel like I have much control over what large organizations know about me, how they collect it, or how they use it. And I also don't think that that sentiment is uncommon.
Is putting in a false address in order to read an article petty? Yeah. Does it accomplish much? No, probably not much. Do I have a chip on my shoulder, concerning my attitude towards these sorts of practices? Yeah, sure. But apparently so do a lot of other people, such as the people who set up and make use of bugmenot.com. Some of the demands corporations (and governments, and other powerful organizations) are making today *are* unreasonable, if you ask me.
I installed AdBlock on Firefox a little while ago. I love it.
Hm, I don't know. Look at the whole picture: what safeguards are there that all of these businesses actually follow their privacy statements? I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't at least uncomfortably common for companies to sell these lists, thinking "Oh, how will they ever know it was us?" And unless you give a different e-mail address to each registration place and then keep track of where spam is sent to, they're right: you can't know who did it. And besides, everyone on the internet has probably been subjected to abusive and intrusive marketing in some form, such as spam, spyware, pop-ups...
It seems to me that if you expect people to be held to a strict standard of honesty in their relationship with companies involved in marketing, you have to demand that same standard of honesty from the companies. That is a responsibility marketing companies have, imho, not lived up to, and you can't be surprised when people grow suspicious of them.
None, which is why putting in disinformation is a good idea!
Information. Information about their customers: who is reading their stuff, how old they are, how much money they probably make...in other words, information that defines you as a certain type of consumer who spends their money in a certain way.