I disagree with "best Zelda game", TP had the potential but it was way too easy for the title. Later on you have tons of hearts and potentially potions but enemies still don't do much more damage than they did in the early game and just by spamming your "occult" moves you can avoid most hits while your shield will deflect loads of attacks you failed to dodge.
Aonuma stated he never finished the earlier Zeldas because they were too difficult so he decided to lower the difficulty. I don't get this aversion towards games you don't finish. Unless you give up in the first half of the game or so that's not a real problem IMO and games shouldn't be designed with the goal to let even a potato finish them. Maybe Aonuma should have tried playing a few more games before trying to design games or he should assume other people are better gamers than him.
Only LoZ and AoL were really nonlinear, all the others had some form of mandatory progression with a few sequence breaks available. You can sequence break in some 3d Zeldas but that really breaks the game.
R is the shield button anyway (not that you need it considering that ~50% of all attacks hit your shield even when you aren't doing anything), when you're close enough you hit the enemy with it rather than just holding it in front of you. The other special moves are on the A button and mostly context sensitive (though the dodge-spin is on B while dodging). There's not much to learn about it beyond what context you have to create to use them.
Though all that combat design is mostly useless because you'll encounter almost no enemies that really require that you use all those moves on them. Hell, even Ganondorf has trouble hitting you while you can score lots of counterhits if you keep using those moves (not that it helps since you can only defeat him by triggering a cutscene).
They were supposedly releasing a dev kit for making downloadable games not too long ago and soon after there were reports of the dev kits selling out faster than they can make them.
What this attitude does is excuses the action-taker from responsibility. If you are going to take action, you should be sure that you are doing the right thing. That means you are responsible for your actions. In business, this is called "due diligence", in other words, if a decision is to be made (an action taken) then the company has the responsibility to learn all about the consequences, justify the cause, etc. People are no better. If someone tells you A, then it is your responsibility to verify A before you act on it; it is certainly no one else's responsibility to bear the brunt of the effects of your actions. Every step the law, or society takes that exonerates people from the consequences of actions they chose to take is a step in the wrong direction. IMHO.
Well, how do you verify that other than taking the machine apart? Nothing written or spoken is trustworthy, you can't trust the manual or any other documentation you find.
This is nonsense. The operator should not lift a finger until they are sure they know what they are doing. Because they are responsible for their actions. The action is the problem. Not the words.
In that case he must never do anything because he can never know what he is doing.
You can say anything you want in a contract; there is no restriction on free speech in such a document. That's all I argue for. Your argument that a signed, witnessed agreement isn't binding under law for free speech reasons is not of interest to me, though I will say I don't agree.
Well, you said no exceptions. A signature is just a bit of text.
I made no such agreement; I signed no such agreement; I have been party to no such agreement. Just so we're 100% clear. This "we" you speak of does not include me. Nor does it include anyone else I know; I can't say I've ever met anyone who has mentioned being party to such an agreement, nor does my observation of society support the idea that such an agreement exists. People lie all the time. All the time. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
People lie and people get jailed for it. Some people wanted to impeach a president for not telling the truth on whether he got a blowjob and they could actually have done that. Common Law is based on what people did before the law was there and that sure as hell included punishing liars.
You are responsible for the magnified actions of yours taken by machines you operate. You should verify your machine works properly before you operate it. If you don't, you have no business operating it. It is just that simple. Personal responsibility. Certainly you should test your steering, brakes, tire inflation, know your lubrication status, and bearing wear before you drive. Why should you be excused from this? I can't think of a single reason. Blaming other people is the game of those who duck responsibility. Know what you're doing; know why you're doing it; know what the consequences are; understand the risks. Not the risks you'd prefer to take, but the actual risks.
There are WAY too many things in our life to comprehend them all down to the smallest piece without asking anyone or reading about it. There are many things that CANNOT be verified before acting. E.g. the police get a call that there's a hostage taker in a building. Should they send one bored officer over to walk in there and see if there's actually a hostage? That would just get the hostage killed. If they send the whole SWAT team they're having great expenses and the team is unavailable during its mission. Since you could no longer get people for prank calls (other than pulling them in a dark alley, alhough since testimonials would no longer be valid they could probably beat him up in broad daylight and noone could convict them) their ressources can and will often be used for false alarms while real criminals get away because no policemen are left to deal with them.
There are also things that cannot be questioned easily like orders from a superior. You have no idea what he's pla
However, absence of counterproof is not a sufficient reason to consider something. That's the difference between the Higgs Boson and the Timecube, the former is a concept to fit into equations because they work better that way, the latter is just a far-fetched claim with no reason to exist. For extraterrestrial visitors we have no reason to assume there are any because there are no phenomena that cannot be explained by things that we know exist. Same for other things that people believe in, e.g. Santa Claus or deities, there is no proof that they don't exist but there is no reason to consider their existence in first place. Occam's Razor means we prefer simple theories and generally introducing new things (especially complex things like sentient life) should be avoided when it's not necessary. There is no reason to consider the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors until we find things we cannot explain without them.
Or maybe the leaders of the world are just playing a complex game of who can engineer events that spawn the most conspiracy theories. "Hey, everyone! Let's talk about some 'New World Order' shit for a while and see how many people will bite!"
I think we should not mistake art as aesthetic, using videogames as art requires leveraging the advantages the medium gives you. In a videogame you don't preach what you believe to be the truth, you let the player find it (by letting him act against it and showing him the outcome if he chooses to do so). In videogames you gain the power to show the player alternative pathes and outcomes, if you pull the player along one path and show him a game over screen otherwise you are doing it wrong (unless the only consideration for your work is the gameplay and you aren't out to tell much of a story). A game can be either only interactivity or interactivity intermingled with other things, it should never be other things with interactivity added as an excuse to call it a game.
One game that struck me ass a failure to use the interactive medium was some anti-Bush game (granted, you shouldn't expect much from a flash game but it's still an example of how to handle this wrong). It was a crappy jump and shoot with a silly storyline that had the player fight Bush while the most insane things happen (let's just say the final battle was John Kerry turning into Voltron to fight a giant mutant Bush) and at certain points you are interrupted with text messages and slides about the bad things bush does (debt, war, etc). That was basically a text about the faults of Bush with a stupid game tacked on for no apparent reason.
Whether you have an agenda or just a story to tell, you should never make it uninterative while throwing almost unrelated bits of gameplay at the player between the "preaching" scenes. Final Fantasy games are also a big example, the story and gameplay have very little to do with each other most of the time with the game having no influence on the story other than interrupting it until you reach the condition to trigger the next scene and it feels like the game was planned as two separate products originally (a movie and a game).
You give and you get with the change to a pointing device. You lose ways that games can be played and gain new ones.
I don't think you lose any with the Wii since "regular" controllers are available and games are allowed to require them. You don't gain the ones bigger performance would bring but you don't lose any compared to the last gen. Technically the lost features in Zelda TP Wii could have been in there but it seems Nintendo decided that what was good enough for N64 gamers is good enough for Wii gamers.
If you can't see the utility in having a pointing device on a console there's not much help for you. Currently many game ideas cannot be executed on consoles because their inputs are useful only for direct controls, not so much for pushing a cursor across the screen. While it would still be possible to make a game that uses a cursor the interface will be clunky, ruining the user experience. And quick pointing is just one of the ways that controller can be used.
I'd say any game has to have the gameplay and interactivity, otherwise it's just a book/painting/movie made in the wrong medium. Art also means to choose the right medium and use it. I'd argue that a game with a great story but gameplay that becomes a nuisance isn't deserving to be called (good) art because it failed to consider the medium it uses. For a game to be proper art it has to use the fact that it's a game to further its purpose (usually the expression of something although a lot fo art expresses nothing and just has interpretations tacked on to make critics feel more important). A good example for a bad art game is Killer 7, that would have worked better as a movie or something because its gameplay is pretty much just filler.
With regard to your statement that "communicating false information can cause severe damage" I disagree. In all communications that are human to human, the only way damage can occur is if the receiving human takes action. If we are to have laws, they must be against actions taken, not communications made.
An action resulting from false information is usually in good faith and with no knowledge of any error. E.g. a person is instructed to operate heavy machinery that can injure or kill people if operated improperly and a person with bad intent gives him an incorrect description of how to use the thing. Would you blame the operator of the machine for the damage or the person who misled him? The operator could not have referenced any other material since it isn't required to be correct as there are no consequences for false information.
Speech never, ever causes harm, given only that it is not presented at such a level that the communication itself damages your sensory apparatus.
Only if we assume all communication is devoid of any information and there is zero trust, noone knows anything they didn't verify themselves. In real life information changes our actions and intentionally feeding people wrong information to create a response should result in the speaker being liable for that response.
Contracts require action; they fall under actions taken or not taken. Verbal contracts should not, in my opinion, be enforceable. For many reasons.
A contract is just "speech" which two parties use to plan their actions. The act of agreeing to the contract is communication and if communication cannot have consequences the agreement to a contract cannot bind you to it (since you'd have the right to claim you're going to adhere to the contract, whether you intend to or not).
Precisely - the fact is, speech cannot be trusted. The examples demonstrating this are literally endless.
Naturally you cannot assume that someone who promises to handle your money properly if handed to him (e.g. a financial institution) can be trusted but that doesn't mean we should accept that natural law as a law for our society. For society to function we agreed to give up some of our rights to protect each other. One of the rights we decided to give up is the right to deceive each other because we agreed that society functions better if we can trust each other and punish those who abuse that.
The fact is, we can't do that now, and we never could do it.
Insurance means recourse in the case it doesn't happen, not that it will always happen. If someone lies to you in a way that causes damage to you (e.g. "the brakes work fine" when really the brakes fail once you go over 60mph) he is liable for that, thus creating a strong incentive to be truthful.
The actual issue is that the value of the land may legitimately be more than the government can afford or be willing to pay, and much higher than that which an appraiser might set. The entire premise of appraising land is based on the idea that the owner wishes to sell. When that precondition does not obtain, no appraiser can provide an accurate number for value, because it is the value to the owner that we are talking about. Not the value to a thief or thieves. Eminent domain is intellectually and financially dishonest from first principles. Coercion of non-criminal citizens is not a valid function of government.
I generally agree that eminent domain is something that's too easy to use and too hard to wield correctly. It's necessary to deal with some issues but generally shouldn't apply if the land it applies to is used productively already (and possibly with a maximum value for the land it's applied to). It makes sense to use if e.g. all farmers in a town refused to sell land to the town to build new houses on but it should not apply to replacing residential areas with a factory or something. If you want a factory there's plenty of open land on this planet, no need to flatten land that is actively use
I think the only right we have left is the one that says they can't quarter soldiers in your house.
It says: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Since the US is almost constantly at "war" (and if it's just the "war" on terror) it would only need a law to allow quartering soldiers in your home to do that without even violating the constitution.
No, I think you're referring to that Lone Gunmen episode where someone hijacks the remote control of a plane to crash it into the WTC, make it look like a terrorist attack and get lots of contracts for his friends in the arms industry.
First off, fortified cockpits have are a good solution. What if the pilots were the first one on the plane, and sealed the door like a Fort Knox Safe as soon as they boarded?
But what if the pilot is the terrorist? Pilots are just humans, who knows if a few of them plan on going kamikaze with the plane?
We have seen him gas his own people, of course he has weapons.
We've seen him gas people over a decade ago, gas weapons aren't good indefinitely, you have to keep them in shape to make them work, same with nukes, after a while they no longer work if you don't keep replacing parts.
The problem is that this complaint comes from a guy who just a year ago complained about "next gen" being too much about pretty graphics. If he was consistent with his complaints he might have more credibility but right now he looks more like he just loves to bash anything popular to make himself look more "discerning".
Re:I may be mistake, but I don't think it sucks...
on
Spore Dev Down On the Wii
·
· Score: 2, Informative
According to him, the XBox 360 and Playstation 3 suck because they push graphics over gameplay and Nintendo sucks for pushing gameplay over "art".
An intelligence is only a complicated way to reach a goal. That goal is still predefined in the "instincts" of the system, the intelligence only finds the best way to reach it. Without a goal intelligence is useless because it has no ways to find and would just sit idle or perform random actions. A robot that has a goal of "help and obey humans" will not decide that humans are a waste of resources because it doesn't care about resources beyond their use to help and obey humans.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with "best Zelda game", TP had the potential but it was way too easy for the title. Later on you have tons of hearts and potentially potions but enemies still don't do much more damage than they did in the early game and just by spamming your "occult" moves you can avoid most hits while your shield will deflect loads of attacks you failed to dodge.
Aonuma stated he never finished the earlier Zeldas because they were too difficult so he decided to lower the difficulty. I don't get this aversion towards games you don't finish. Unless you give up in the first half of the game or so that's not a real problem IMO and games shouldn't be designed with the goal to let even a potato finish them. Maybe Aonuma should have tried playing a few more games before trying to design games or he should assume other people are better gamers than him.
Only LoZ and AoL were really nonlinear, all the others had some form of mandatory progression with a few sequence breaks available. You can sequence break in some 3d Zeldas but that really breaks the game.
R is the shield button anyway (not that you need it considering that ~50% of all attacks hit your shield even when you aren't doing anything), when you're close enough you hit the enemy with it rather than just holding it in front of you. The other special moves are on the A button and mostly context sensitive (though the dodge-spin is on B while dodging). There's not much to learn about it beyond what context you have to create to use them.
Though all that combat design is mostly useless because you'll encounter almost no enemies that really require that you use all those moves on them. Hell, even Ganondorf has trouble hitting you while you can score lots of counterhits if you keep using those moves (not that it helps since you can only defeat him by triggering a cutscene).
Yes but if it's not criminal it doesn't matter whether they were ignorant (at least for the legal system, their boss can still demote them for that).
Naah, 10% are Schrödinger's teachers, they are both qualified and not qualified at the same time.
Factory? We're replacing the dumb people with machines and cheap Cinese labor, we don't need more of them.
They were supposedly releasing a dev kit for making downloadable games not too long ago and soon after there were reports of the dev kits selling out faster than they can make them.
What this attitude does is excuses the action-taker from responsibility. If you are going to take action, you should be sure that you are doing the right thing. That means you are responsible for your actions. In business, this is called "due diligence", in other words, if a decision is to be made (an action taken) then the company has the responsibility to learn all about the consequences, justify the cause, etc. People are no better. If someone tells you A, then it is your responsibility to verify A before you act on it; it is certainly no one else's responsibility to bear the brunt of the effects of your actions. Every step the law, or society takes that exonerates people from the consequences of actions they chose to take is a step in the wrong direction. IMHO.
Well, how do you verify that other than taking the machine apart? Nothing written or spoken is trustworthy, you can't trust the manual or any other documentation you find.
This is nonsense. The operator should not lift a finger until they are sure they know what they are doing. Because they are responsible for their actions. The action is the problem. Not the words.
In that case he must never do anything because he can never know what he is doing.
You can say anything you want in a contract; there is no restriction on free speech in such a document. That's all I argue for. Your argument that a signed, witnessed agreement isn't binding under law for free speech reasons is not of interest to me, though I will say I don't agree.
Well, you said no exceptions. A signature is just a bit of text.
I made no such agreement; I signed no such agreement; I have been party to no such agreement. Just so we're 100% clear. This "we" you speak of does not include me. Nor does it include anyone else I know; I can't say I've ever met anyone who has mentioned being party to such an agreement, nor does my observation of society support the idea that such an agreement exists. People lie all the time. All the time. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
People lie and people get jailed for it. Some people wanted to impeach a president for not telling the truth on whether he got a blowjob and they could actually have done that. Common Law is based on what people did before the law was there and that sure as hell included punishing liars.
You are responsible for the magnified actions of yours taken by machines you operate. You should verify your machine works properly before you operate it. If you don't, you have no business operating it. It is just that simple. Personal responsibility. Certainly you should test your steering, brakes, tire inflation, know your lubrication status, and bearing wear before you drive. Why should you be excused from this? I can't think of a single reason. Blaming other people is the game of those who duck responsibility. Know what you're doing; know why you're doing it; know what the consequences are; understand the risks. Not the risks you'd prefer to take, but the actual risks.
There are WAY too many things in our life to comprehend them all down to the smallest piece without asking anyone or reading about it. There are many things that CANNOT be verified before acting. E.g. the police get a call that there's a hostage taker in a building. Should they send one bored officer over to walk in there and see if there's actually a hostage? That would just get the hostage killed. If they send the whole SWAT team they're having great expenses and the team is unavailable during its mission. Since you could no longer get people for prank calls (other than pulling them in a dark alley, alhough since testimonials would no longer be valid they could probably beat him up in broad daylight and noone could convict them) their ressources can and will often be used for false alarms while real criminals get away because no policemen are left to deal with them.
There are also things that cannot be questioned easily like orders from a superior. You have no idea what he's pla
However, absence of counterproof is not a sufficient reason to consider something. That's the difference between the Higgs Boson and the Timecube, the former is a concept to fit into equations because they work better that way, the latter is just a far-fetched claim with no reason to exist. For extraterrestrial visitors we have no reason to assume there are any because there are no phenomena that cannot be explained by things that we know exist. Same for other things that people believe in, e.g. Santa Claus or deities, there is no proof that they don't exist but there is no reason to consider their existence in first place. Occam's Razor means we prefer simple theories and generally introducing new things (especially complex things like sentient life) should be avoided when it's not necessary. There is no reason to consider the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors until we find things we cannot explain without them.
On the other hand he stated they'd either be undetectable or interfere in obvious ways. We are doing the latter.
Or maybe the leaders of the world are just playing a complex game of who can engineer events that spawn the most conspiracy theories. "Hey, everyone! Let's talk about some 'New World Order' shit for a while and see how many people will bite!"
I think we should not mistake art as aesthetic, using videogames as art requires leveraging the advantages the medium gives you. In a videogame you don't preach what you believe to be the truth, you let the player find it (by letting him act against it and showing him the outcome if he chooses to do so). In videogames you gain the power to show the player alternative pathes and outcomes, if you pull the player along one path and show him a game over screen otherwise you are doing it wrong (unless the only consideration for your work is the gameplay and you aren't out to tell much of a story). A game can be either only interactivity or interactivity intermingled with other things, it should never be other things with interactivity added as an excuse to call it a game.
One game that struck me ass a failure to use the interactive medium was some anti-Bush game (granted, you shouldn't expect much from a flash game but it's still an example of how to handle this wrong). It was a crappy jump and shoot with a silly storyline that had the player fight Bush while the most insane things happen (let's just say the final battle was John Kerry turning into Voltron to fight a giant mutant Bush) and at certain points you are interrupted with text messages and slides about the bad things bush does (debt, war, etc). That was basically a text about the faults of Bush with a stupid game tacked on for no apparent reason.
Whether you have an agenda or just a story to tell, you should never make it uninterative while throwing almost unrelated bits of gameplay at the player between the "preaching" scenes. Final Fantasy games are also a big example, the story and gameplay have very little to do with each other most of the time with the game having no influence on the story other than interrupting it until you reach the condition to trigger the next scene and it feels like the game was planned as two separate products originally (a movie and a game).
You give and you get with the change to a pointing device. You lose ways that games can be played and gain new ones.
I don't think you lose any with the Wii since "regular" controllers are available and games are allowed to require them. You don't gain the ones bigger performance would bring but you don't lose any compared to the last gen. Technically the lost features in Zelda TP Wii could have been in there but it seems Nintendo decided that what was good enough for N64 gamers is good enough for Wii gamers.
If you can't see the utility in having a pointing device on a console there's not much help for you. Currently many game ideas cannot be executed on consoles because their inputs are useful only for direct controls, not so much for pushing a cursor across the screen. While it would still be possible to make a game that uses a cursor the interface will be clunky, ruining the user experience. And quick pointing is just one of the ways that controller can be used.
I'd say any game has to have the gameplay and interactivity, otherwise it's just a book/painting/movie made in the wrong medium. Art also means to choose the right medium and use it. I'd argue that a game with a great story but gameplay that becomes a nuisance isn't deserving to be called (good) art because it failed to consider the medium it uses. For a game to be proper art it has to use the fact that it's a game to further its purpose (usually the expression of something although a lot fo art expresses nothing and just has interpretations tacked on to make critics feel more important). A good example for a bad art game is Killer 7, that would have worked better as a movie or something because its gameplay is pretty much just filler.
With regard to your statement that "communicating false information can cause severe damage" I disagree. In all communications that are human to human, the only way damage can occur is if the receiving human takes action. If we are to have laws, they must be against actions taken, not communications made.
An action resulting from false information is usually in good faith and with no knowledge of any error. E.g. a person is instructed to operate heavy machinery that can injure or kill people if operated improperly and a person with bad intent gives him an incorrect description of how to use the thing. Would you blame the operator of the machine for the damage or the person who misled him? The operator could not have referenced any other material since it isn't required to be correct as there are no consequences for false information.
Speech never, ever causes harm, given only that it is not presented at such a level that the communication itself damages your sensory apparatus.
Only if we assume all communication is devoid of any information and there is zero trust, noone knows anything they didn't verify themselves. In real life information changes our actions and intentionally feeding people wrong information to create a response should result in the speaker being liable for that response.
Contracts require action; they fall under actions taken or not taken. Verbal contracts should not, in my opinion, be enforceable. For many reasons.
A contract is just "speech" which two parties use to plan their actions. The act of agreeing to the contract is communication and if communication cannot have consequences the agreement to a contract cannot bind you to it (since you'd have the right to claim you're going to adhere to the contract, whether you intend to or not).
Precisely - the fact is, speech cannot be trusted. The examples demonstrating this are literally endless.
Naturally you cannot assume that someone who promises to handle your money properly if handed to him (e.g. a financial institution) can be trusted but that doesn't mean we should accept that natural law as a law for our society. For society to function we agreed to give up some of our rights to protect each other. One of the rights we decided to give up is the right to deceive each other because we agreed that society functions better if we can trust each other and punish those who abuse that.
The fact is, we can't do that now, and we never could do it.
Insurance means recourse in the case it doesn't happen, not that it will always happen. If someone lies to you in a way that causes damage to you (e.g. "the brakes work fine" when really the brakes fail once you go over 60mph) he is liable for that, thus creating a strong incentive to be truthful.
The actual issue is that the value of the land may legitimately be more than the government can afford or be willing to pay, and much higher than that which an appraiser might set. The entire premise of appraising land is based on the idea that the owner wishes to sell. When that precondition does not obtain, no appraiser can provide an accurate number for value, because it is the value to the owner that we are talking about. Not the value to a thief or thieves. Eminent domain is intellectually and financially dishonest from first principles. Coercion of non-criminal citizens is not a valid function of government.
I generally agree that eminent domain is something that's too easy to use and too hard to wield correctly. It's necessary to deal with some issues but generally shouldn't apply if the land it applies to is used productively already (and possibly with a maximum value for the land it's applied to). It makes sense to use if e.g. all farmers in a town refused to sell land to the town to build new houses on but it should not apply to replacing residential areas with a factory or something. If you want a factory there's plenty of open land on this planet, no need to flatten land that is actively use
I think the only right we have left is the one that says they can't quarter soldiers in your house.
It says:
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Since the US is almost constantly at "war" (and if it's just the "war" on terror) it would only need a law to allow quartering soldiers in your home to do that without even violating the constitution.
No, I think you're referring to that Lone Gunmen episode where someone hijacks the remote control of a plane to crash it into the WTC, make it look like a terrorist attack and get lots of contracts for his friends in the arms industry.
Just hijack the control building instead of the plane.
First off, fortified cockpits have are a good solution. What if the pilots were the first one on the plane, and sealed the door like a Fort Knox Safe as soon as they boarded?
But what if the pilot is the terrorist? Pilots are just humans, who knows if a few of them plan on going kamikaze with the plane?
We have seen him gas his own people, of course he has weapons.
We've seen him gas people over a decade ago, gas weapons aren't good indefinitely, you have to keep them in shape to make them work, same with nukes, after a while they no longer work if you don't keep replacing parts.
The problem is that this complaint comes from a guy who just a year ago complained about "next gen" being too much about pretty graphics. If he was consistent with his complaints he might have more credibility but right now he looks more like he just loves to bash anything popular to make himself look more "discerning".
According to him, the XBox 360 and Playstation 3 suck because they push graphics over gameplay and Nintendo sucks for pushing gameplay over "art".
You could just as well have linked to Penny Arcade, at least that's videogame related.
My thought about that is that if the organism is more fit than humans it won't need protection.
An intelligence is only a complicated way to reach a goal. That goal is still predefined in the "instincts" of the system, the intelligence only finds the best way to reach it. Without a goal intelligence is useless because it has no ways to find and would just sit idle or perform random actions. A robot that has a goal of "help and obey humans" will not decide that humans are a waste of resources because it doesn't care about resources beyond their use to help and obey humans.