I have to agree. Israel isn't one of my favorite countries, but "Makes poor policy decisions," to me, != "Should be wiped off the face of the Earth."
I'm not a fan of any nuclear arms in the hands of any country, but I'd much rather have them in the hands of stable countries who aren't likely to ever use them (or in the case of the USA, use them again) than in the hands of countries who openly admit they'd slaughter an entire population if they got the chance.
See what I said above: This is Disney being a distributor, not a producer. They're not over at Pixar/Ghibli telling them what to put in their movies, they just slap their names on the boxes, put out the ads, and ship them out.
I agree wholeheartedly. Disney only furthers the idea that "cartoons and animation are for kids." Or the clinically brain dead. Groups like Pixar and studio Ghibli, on the other hand, continue to prove that something can be "family friendly" and still be entertaining for everyone.
But Disney is too busy selling Disney Princess Makeup Kits and Hanna Montana DVDs to give two shits about the actual quality of what they produce.
I think I have a better idea that would involve fewer new cults: Slashdot Your Rights Online Story | Denizens of the Internet Propose Church of Scientology Shut Up And Go Away
And my mother practices Reiki, beliving crystal rocks and chakra/chi are used to heal the body, despite (to my knowledge) any actual benefits noted by any reputable scientific source beyond the placebo effect.
There are a lot of religious groups who claim their religion follows the strict, rigorous testings of science. Hell, creationists have museums to "explain" why it's a scientifically valid theory.
The problem with your comparison to Scientology is when most people hear "Scientology," they think "money-grubbing, murderous, evil bastards."
If socializing means I have to put up with smug, self-righteous assholes like you, I think I'd MUCH prefer the dark, dank basement with a bunch of socially stunted nerds. Or alone. Quite frankly, just about anything else, really.
Truth be told, I dislike the way his plan is turning out. I'm really not sure what I should feel, as the system is so complicated that I doubt ANYONE truly knows what is best. All I do know to believe is that there are people who go broke through complicated (and often unnecessary) medical procedures. Worse, because they can't afford them, some people go without them completely and end up with worse conditions that hospitals have to deal with in the end. This is unacceptable as a citizen and as a human being.
I recall reading a Republican Representative's quote in Time magazine a while back about how if they can beat Obama's healthcare plan, they'll beat HIM. That, to me, is pure evil. They oppose a plan not because it's in the best interest of the people (or so they believe, in any case) but because they want political power.
I'd argue that a baby is not evil in the same way a dog that attacks someone is not evil: It may hurt and be selfish, but it's not because of choice, it is because of ignorance, a lack of understanding, and failure to understand one's self as well as their place in the world.
Evil requires some degree of intelligence. Enough to understand that one has multiple choices in a situation. Then, the being much choose the one that will cause significant harm to another without a suitable gain from the action.
(By that last statement, I mean to say it's impossible to live without harming ANYTHING. You must kill either animals or plants to feed. It's nigh impossible to walk without stepping on some poor creature. How far this line is drawn between "necessary gain" and "acceptable losses" is where philosophy comes into the picture)
1). I said the SETTING was strictly Japanese, not the characters. The culture, the atmosphere. There's more to a setting than the people, you know. 2). I don't recall saying non-whites and non-asians don't exist. I asked why is this an issue. I can identify with blacks. I can identify with females. Not always on specific issues related to them, personally, but at least intellectually and in a manner that we are ALL human. Cut them, bleed, etc. If I merely don't understand, enlighten me. You say I'm acting high and mighty, I say you're calling the kettle black. 3). As I said, many games these days let you CREATE a character. If this is a case, perhaps it's not as bad as the article suggests?
There is some truth in what you say. These days, you hear about plans to raise grades in school. But when they say that, they don't mean across the board. They mean helping the students who would otherwise flunk out or almost flunk out of school. Very little attention is given to the "gifted" students, who naturally do well. As a result, often their own talents are left unrefined and don't develop as well as they could have simply because they were already "good enough."
I mostly have to agree with the parent. I've noticed when I play the Sims, I tend to make pale white characters. And yes, I'm whiter than sour cream. This does not mean I hold anything against any other races (though that statement sure sounds like the beginning of such an admission). It just means I make characters that visibly, I find more attractive/I can relate to more.
How many Japanese games feature a purely American setting? (I can think of a few, like Dead Rising, but it's in the minority) Most Japanese developers feature their games in a clearly Japanese setting. Similarly, American developers rarely feature games outside an American (or at least Westernized) setting. It's not racism, it's merely a case of "write what you know."
That being said, with games often offering a great deal of customization these days, is it really an issue at all?
Not only do they not necessarily sell as well, they cost more to make, too.
Remember, you COULD work on an artistic, original game that blends genres, hire GOOD voice actors, take your time developing it and testing it thoroughly, or you can make a knockoff of a movie in 6 months, period. And it will likely sell better.
Both TF2 and L4D both do one thing right by Valve: They don't overuse one-liners. For any given circumstance, there are probably a half-dozen possible phrases per character or class. Rather than have them say a line everytime, they randomize it and it works well. For example, in TF2 if you've just dominated an opponent, there's a number of standard lines per class ("You just got freakin' dominated, knucklehead, all right, let's do this") to a number of class specific taunts depending on your class and the class you just killed ("That was a mercy killing, you live in a, uh, uh, CAMPER VAN." "You ain't so smart with your brains OUTSIDE your head, now, are you?") meaning you rarely ever hear the same taunts twice, at least within any reasonable amount of time.
Then, if I may ask you, what IS an RPG? Because Fallout 3 seems to be one in my book: You play a character of a race, sex, appearance of your choosing, check. You make decisions that make allies, enemies, etc. and ultimately define your character, check (You can argue that there wasn't enough choices, [I don't] but that is not a limit of the 3D environment, it was a limit of developer time/money) You level up via experience and place statistics to mold your combat abilities, check. You acquire, manage, and equip armor and weapons based on said skills and abilities, check.
You can't do ANY of those things in "just another FPS." Half-life 1 or 2, Crysis, No One Lives Forever, Painkiller... NONE of those games have ANY of those features. In fact, most of them are won by simply grabbing the biggest gun and shooting baddies who pop out of the woodwork. You can do SOME stealth, but that generally means using the silenced gun before attracting a mob. In fact, the only other FPS with these attributes is Deus Ex, which has many RPG attributes, was praised for it, and was a truly classic game.
So, please, explain to me how FO3 is not an RPG. Yes, it has guns. Yes, you can manually aim it. But you can also do turn based, statistics combat. And you can use melee weapons. So where is the RPG element lacking?
Touche, anonymous, touche. I forgot the ever so important drunk frat boy demographic. And that "slight change" doesn't necessarily warrant a $50+ purchase.
This is a problem I see quite often when people try to "counter" a popular scientific theory. They give an example of where the results get blurry and assume some new theory, right around the corner, will topple centuries of research and we will begin anew. Such things are an extreme rarity. For example, if we discovered an entirely new theory of gravitation, hypothetically, that better explains how large bodies move in space, it won't likely change the fact that here on Earth, gravity is fairly constant everywhere. And it turns out that mass ISN'T as constant as we once believed... but, quite frankly, when you're an engineer designing a bridge, it's constant enough.
New data rarely warrants throwing out the old data. It usually just adds new conditions. I.E., Mass is constant when at rest. As you pointed out, Newtonian physics works great under pretty much any circumstance you'll run into on Earth.
Errr... WHY? I mean, what you're basically saying is "I want the exact same games I played years ago, but prettier."
Fallout 3 is fine in a 3D environment. It builds a more believable world. Being first person doesn't somehow diminish anything. Just look at the Metroid series when it jumped to a first person view. Neither are anything like the standard FPS du jour. They're both more open ended and exploration and detail oriented.
Stop viewing older games through the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses and realize some change is good.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, that all sounds fair to me. The RIAA provides no service or commodity, then proceeds to collect payment for another's work. It's a win-win!
I have to agree. Israel isn't one of my favorite countries, but "Makes poor policy decisions," to me, != "Should be wiped off the face of the Earth."
I'm not a fan of any nuclear arms in the hands of any country, but I'd much rather have them in the hands of stable countries who aren't likely to ever use them (or in the case of the USA, use them again) than in the hands of countries who openly admit they'd slaughter an entire population if they got the chance.
Because "Mistakes were made" = "We're all evil puppy kickers."
See what I said above:
This is Disney being a distributor, not a producer. They're not over at Pixar/Ghibli telling them what to put in their movies, they just slap their names on the boxes, put out the ads, and ship them out.
Indeed they do. But Disney doesn't directly control what Pixar creates. They're more or less given total creative freedom.
In this instance, Disney is really just a distributor, not a producer.
I agree wholeheartedly. Disney only furthers the idea that "cartoons and animation are for kids." Or the clinically brain dead. Groups like Pixar and studio Ghibli, on the other hand, continue to prove that something can be "family friendly" and still be entertaining for everyone.
But Disney is too busy selling Disney Princess Makeup Kits and Hanna Montana DVDs to give two shits about the actual quality of what they produce.
But you're forgetting something. It has a different name! And I saw people wearing masks! And the news talks about it!
Therefore, I can safely conclude it has a mortality rate of 1000%, can be contracted by looking at a pig, and it will destroy humanity.
Can you truly argue with these documented facts?
I think I have a better idea that would involve fewer new cults:
Slashdot Your Rights Online Story | Denizens of the Internet Propose Church of Scientology Shut Up And Go Away
I would think they would supplant goals. Seems to be the easiest way. Otherwise you end up with...
"We're sorry, but we can't let you do that, Dave..."
To be honest, so do I, but I'm speaking from how most people think.
And my mother practices Reiki, beliving crystal rocks and chakra/chi are used to heal the body, despite (to my knowledge) any actual benefits noted by any reputable scientific source beyond the placebo effect.
There are a lot of religious groups who claim their religion follows the strict, rigorous testings of science. Hell, creationists have museums to "explain" why it's a scientifically valid theory.
The problem with your comparison to Scientology is when most people hear "Scientology," they think "money-grubbing, murderous, evil bastards."
If socializing means I have to put up with smug, self-righteous assholes like you, I think I'd MUCH prefer the dark, dank basement with a bunch of socially stunted nerds. Or alone. Quite frankly, just about anything else, really.
Legal? No.
Morally wrong? Very debatable.
I'd, personally, say "I already gave you money for what you did, so if I want to medium shift, fuck off."
Bravo. If I had mod points, they'd be yours.
Truth be told, I dislike the way his plan is turning out. I'm really not sure what I should feel, as the system is so complicated that I doubt ANYONE truly knows what is best. All I do know to believe is that there are people who go broke through complicated (and often unnecessary) medical procedures. Worse, because they can't afford them, some people go without them completely and end up with worse conditions that hospitals have to deal with in the end. This is unacceptable as a citizen and as a human being.
I recall reading a Republican Representative's quote in Time magazine a while back about how if they can beat Obama's healthcare plan, they'll beat HIM. That, to me, is pure evil. They oppose a plan not because it's in the best interest of the people (or so they believe, in any case) but because they want political power.
I'd argue that a baby is not evil in the same way a dog that attacks someone is not evil: It may hurt and be selfish, but it's not because of choice, it is because of ignorance, a lack of understanding, and failure to understand one's self as well as their place in the world.
Evil requires some degree of intelligence. Enough to understand that one has multiple choices in a situation. Then, the being much choose the one that will cause significant harm to another without a suitable gain from the action.
(By that last statement, I mean to say it's impossible to live without harming ANYTHING. You must kill either animals or plants to feed. It's nigh impossible to walk without stepping on some poor creature. How far this line is drawn between "necessary gain" and "acceptable losses" is where philosophy comes into the picture)
1). I said the SETTING was strictly Japanese, not the characters. The culture, the atmosphere. There's more to a setting than the people, you know.
2). I don't recall saying non-whites and non-asians don't exist. I asked why is this an issue. I can identify with blacks. I can identify with females. Not always on specific issues related to them, personally, but at least intellectually and in a manner that we are ALL human. Cut them, bleed, etc. If I merely don't understand, enlighten me. You say I'm acting high and mighty, I say you're calling the kettle black.
3). As I said, many games these days let you CREATE a character. If this is a case, perhaps it's not as bad as the article suggests?
There is some truth in what you say. These days, you hear about plans to raise grades in school. But when they say that, they don't mean across the board. They mean helping the students who would otherwise flunk out or almost flunk out of school. Very little attention is given to the "gifted" students, who naturally do well. As a result, often their own talents are left unrefined and don't develop as well as they could have simply because they were already "good enough."
I mostly have to agree with the parent. I've noticed when I play the Sims, I tend to make pale white characters. And yes, I'm whiter than sour cream. This does not mean I hold anything against any other races (though that statement sure sounds like the beginning of such an admission). It just means I make characters that visibly, I find more attractive/I can relate to more.
How many Japanese games feature a purely American setting? (I can think of a few, like Dead Rising, but it's in the minority) Most Japanese developers feature their games in a clearly Japanese setting. Similarly, American developers rarely feature games outside an American (or at least Westernized) setting. It's not racism, it's merely a case of "write what you know."
That being said, with games often offering a great deal of customization these days, is it really an issue at all?
Not only do they not necessarily sell as well, they cost more to make, too.
Remember, you COULD work on an artistic, original game that blends genres, hire GOOD voice actors, take your time developing it and testing it thoroughly, or you can make a knockoff of a movie in 6 months, period. And it will likely sell better.
Both TF2 and L4D both do one thing right by Valve: They don't overuse one-liners. For any given circumstance, there are probably a half-dozen possible phrases per character or class. Rather than have them say a line everytime, they randomize it and it works well. For example, in TF2 if you've just dominated an opponent, there's a number of standard lines per class ("You just got freakin' dominated, knucklehead, all right, let's do this") to a number of class specific taunts depending on your class and the class you just killed ("That was a mercy killing, you live in a, uh, uh, CAMPER VAN." "You ain't so smart with your brains OUTSIDE your head, now, are you?") meaning you rarely ever hear the same taunts twice, at least within any reasonable amount of time.
May I still be allowed to say that "Twitter is almost, usually, completely useless?"
At the very least I'd like to be allowed to still throw my shoes at the TV every time I hear some new show/news report based on it.
Then, if I may ask you, what IS an RPG? Because Fallout 3 seems to be one in my book:
You play a character of a race, sex, appearance of your choosing, check.
You make decisions that make allies, enemies, etc. and ultimately define your character, check (You can argue that there wasn't enough choices, [I don't] but that is not a limit of the 3D environment, it was a limit of developer time/money)
You level up via experience and place statistics to mold your combat abilities, check.
You acquire, manage, and equip armor and weapons based on said skills and abilities, check.
You can't do ANY of those things in "just another FPS." Half-life 1 or 2, Crysis, No One Lives Forever, Painkiller... NONE of those games have ANY of those features. In fact, most of them are won by simply grabbing the biggest gun and shooting baddies who pop out of the woodwork. You can do SOME stealth, but that generally means using the silenced gun before attracting a mob. In fact, the only other FPS with these attributes is Deus Ex, which has many RPG attributes, was praised for it, and was a truly classic game.
So, please, explain to me how FO3 is not an RPG. Yes, it has guns. Yes, you can manually aim it. But you can also do turn based, statistics combat. And you can use melee weapons. So where is the RPG element lacking?
Touche, anonymous, touche. I forgot the ever so important drunk frat boy demographic. And that "slight change" doesn't necessarily warrant a $50+ purchase.
This is a problem I see quite often when people try to "counter" a popular scientific theory. They give an example of where the results get blurry and assume some new theory, right around the corner, will topple centuries of research and we will begin anew. Such things are an extreme rarity. For example, if we discovered an entirely new theory of gravitation, hypothetically, that better explains how large bodies move in space, it won't likely change the fact that here on Earth, gravity is fairly constant everywhere. And it turns out that mass ISN'T as constant as we once believed... but, quite frankly, when you're an engineer designing a bridge, it's constant enough.
New data rarely warrants throwing out the old data. It usually just adds new conditions. I.E., Mass is constant when at rest. As you pointed out, Newtonian physics works great under pretty much any circumstance you'll run into on Earth.
Errr... WHY? I mean, what you're basically saying is "I want the exact same games I played years ago, but prettier."
Fallout 3 is fine in a 3D environment. It builds a more believable world. Being first person doesn't somehow diminish anything. Just look at the Metroid series when it jumped to a first person view. Neither are anything like the standard FPS du jour. They're both more open ended and exploration and detail oriented.
Stop viewing older games through the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses and realize some change is good.