I agree. I just want to pull off here from the main subject and go to something related: if game stirs up strong emotional response from a player, does it make it a very good game. In my experience, all games that have affected me emotionnally have always been really good. Half-Life made me feel helpless at times, Planescape Torment made me feel perplexed (in the end of the game).
Second, I believe that a strong story can make someone cry only if the gameplay is in some way attached to it. There are too many game who's stories are great, but the gameplay has often nothing or little to do it with it. And generally, I just skip the cutscene or text.
I've downloaded Firefox over 10 times in 6 months. Either for new systems or when I format my hardrive because I screwed it up. Do those count?
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Ok, allow me to rephrase that: If everyone is going to steal everything I create and try to sell, why on earths should I bother?
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
The only way they "encourage creativity" is by allowing folks like me to profit from our endeavors. Otherwise we'd be working as garbagemen or lawyers or programmers and spending our free time on more important things, like family.
It kinda sounds like communism doesn't it? In a communist country, a doctor makes as much as a garbage man or even an unemployed individual. He gets a chicken and three eggs a week. Then why on earth would anybody work?
If I write music, code, literature or whatever intellectual work and not get any reward from it, wh on earth should I do it? For the sake of creativity? Nah, I'm a lazy person.
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's more greed than anything else. I doubt it has anything to do with a hacker's mindset. I mean there are people who have literally weeks of music on their computer, I garantee it that they haven't listen to everything they own. They just pirate for the sake of having it.
I recently ripped all my CDs to my computer and realized that I have over a week worth of music. I have listened to every single one of these records at least a dozen of times.
That's the difference, when you pay for something you generally pay more attention to it, use it and appreciate more that if you pirate it. Otherwise, you might download Gigli(or any bad movie) just for the sake of having it, knowing full well that won't ever watch it.
For the record, I am a greedy person. Was I not stuck on dial-up, I would join the ranks of the pirates.
It just means that IE for some reason or another is more robust than the other browsers, in terms of dealing with bad input. Feeding malformed input to any program is a way to test its robustness.
Crashing applications is never a good thing. However in this case, if it crashes, then the program is stalled and no harm is done except that you have restart the browser. On the other hand, if IE does not crash and the others do, their must be something it does to make it withstand such treatment. That something could possibly be exploited. Mind you, I don't what kind of crap you can a feed browser to make it crash.
Free software and open source software are two different things. It is possible to sell software and still allow people to look into its inner workings.
I believe that Apple started all this crap when they decided to make hardware that people couldn't clone.
I was introduced to the FR setting through novels and not the game itself. So, FR being larger than life works with the novels, I have trouble imagining Drizzt et Al. being very interesting had they been agressively neutral.
Although FR wasn't originally based on novels, we can agree that much of its more recent material is based on them. And most rpgs/campaign setting based on or licensed from other stories kind of suck. Dragonlance is not fun to play, Star Wars is very difficult to manage because people cannot detach from the books.
Well, from my experience, rules are useful (and perhaps necessary) to hack-and-slash games. Those games require a lot dice rolling whereas the more-talk-less-fight games generally don't need very detailed rules. Immersive story-telling games need only a reasonable DM.
And to those who hate hack-and-slashing, D&D was born from war games, so it only makes sense that violence and killing be part of it.
OK, the Daily Show is funny and many people (in the 18-25 age group, the group which I belong to) apparently or supposedly get their news on American politics. Well, most of the real, non hurtful, as Jon Stewart put it, news presented on CNN or Fox can be found on the news ticker at bottom of the screen. And of course, you can get the the same information on the Daily Show, although with a satirical twist or on CNN with a "theatrical" twist, but either way you get the jist of the what is going on in the world of politics.
On Crossfire, Jon Stewart is attacking CNN and the hosts by accusing the them of failing in their duty as a new outlet. From what I can see, Stewart is asking the news networks to be more like the news ticker and less theater. Ok, I admit it's not as simple as that. Now, my problem is: What is the maintream media's duty? In world where freedom of speech has a primordial importance, who can define what that duty is? We can present basically anything, although nothing shown is directly from journalism's own "volition". Most of it is what the newsmakers (as in the people the media reports on) want them to show and it's working. Although Stewart hasn't said what mainstream media should be, he sure has shown what he thinks it should not be.
The hosts of Crossfire argued that Stewart's show isn't much different from theirs in the partisanship perspective. Now, Stewart says in his defence that the Daily Show comes after a show about puppets who make prank phone calls and that his duty is not the same as that of news outlets (whatever that duty may be). If it weren't for the fact (not sure if it is) that many many people get their news from his show, I would agree. But, since many do, would it be reasonable to think that he also has the same responsibililty as CNN, beyond being funny? This responsibility was, in a way, shoved upon him, since the Daily Show does not proclaim itself as being a source for news.
Ok, this post is getting long and I'm rambling, so I'm going to end it here. You know what? Jon Stewart is successful in his duty. He went on Crossfire and told the world what he thought. And Daily Show's satire is more informative (even though it doesn't have to be) than CNN, so yeah, Jon is right, the mainstream media is in a pretty sad situation if some late night talk show on Comedy Central is better.
Slashdot Mirror
The story is best I've seen in any game, better than many book I've read or films I've seen.
Oh god, Battletoads. That was so difficult. I don't burst in tears, I throw my NES controller against the wall and smoke a cigarette to calm down.
Violence is not something that can be quantified.
Playing video games is not rocket science.
I agree. I just want to pull off here from the main subject and go to something related: if game stirs up strong emotional response from a player, does it make it a very good game. In my experience, all games that have affected me emotionnally have always been really good. Half-Life made me feel helpless at times, Planescape Torment made me feel perplexed (in the end of the game). Second, I believe that a strong story can make someone cry only if the gameplay is in some way attached to it. There are too many game who's stories are great, but the gameplay has often nothing or little to do it with it. And generally, I just skip the cutscene or text.
Firefox can be used to do harm. Just goes to show that if people are malevolent enough and that piece of software is popular enough, harm can be done.
Anyone who has any self-respect will use LaTEX.
I've downloaded Firefox over 10 times in 6 months. Either for new systems or when I format my hardrive because I screwed it up. Do those count?
Ok, allow me to rephrase that: If everyone is going to steal everything I create and try to sell, why on earths should I bother?
The only way they "encourage creativity" is by allowing folks like me to profit from our endeavors. Otherwise we'd be working as garbagemen or lawyers or programmers and spending our free time on more important things, like family. It kinda sounds like communism doesn't it? In a communist country, a doctor makes as much as a garbage man or even an unemployed individual. He gets a chicken and three eggs a week. Then why on earth would anybody work? If I write music, code, literature or whatever intellectual work and not get any reward from it, wh on earth should I do it? For the sake of creativity? Nah, I'm a lazy person.
It's more greed than anything else. I doubt it has anything to do with a hacker's mindset. I mean there are people who have literally weeks of music on their computer, I garantee it that they haven't listen to everything they own. They just pirate for the sake of having it. I recently ripped all my CDs to my computer and realized that I have over a week worth of music. I have listened to every single one of these records at least a dozen of times. That's the difference, when you pay for something you generally pay more attention to it, use it and appreciate more that if you pirate it. Otherwise, you might download Gigli(or any bad movie) just for the sake of having it, knowing full well that won't ever watch it. For the record, I am a greedy person. Was I not stuck on dial-up, I would join the ranks of the pirates.
It just means that IE for some reason or another is more robust than the other browsers, in terms of dealing with bad input. Feeding malformed input to any program is a way to test its robustness. Crashing applications is never a good thing. However in this case, if it crashes, then the program is stalled and no harm is done except that you have restart the browser. On the other hand, if IE does not crash and the others do, their must be something it does to make it withstand such treatment. That something could possibly be exploited. Mind you, I don't what kind of crap you can a feed browser to make it crash.
Free software and open source software are two different things. It is possible to sell software and still allow people to look into its inner workings. I believe that Apple started all this crap when they decided to make hardware that people couldn't clone.
I was introduced to the FR setting through novels and not the game itself. So, FR being larger than life works with the novels, I have trouble imagining Drizzt et Al. being very interesting had they been agressively neutral. Although FR wasn't originally based on novels, we can agree that much of its more recent material is based on them. And most rpgs/campaign setting based on or licensed from other stories kind of suck. Dragonlance is not fun to play, Star Wars is very difficult to manage because people cannot detach from the books.
Well, from my experience, rules are useful (and perhaps necessary) to hack-and-slash games. Those games require a lot dice rolling whereas the more-talk-less-fight games generally don't need very detailed rules. Immersive story-telling games need only a reasonable DM. And to those who hate hack-and-slashing, D&D was born from war games, so it only makes sense that violence and killing be part of it.
OK, the Daily Show is funny and many people (in the 18-25 age group, the group which I belong to) apparently or supposedly get their news on American politics. Well, most of the real, non hurtful, as Jon Stewart put it, news presented on CNN or Fox can be found on the news ticker at bottom of the screen. And of course, you can get the the same information on the Daily Show, although with a satirical twist or on CNN with a "theatrical" twist, but either way you get the jist of the what is going on in the world of politics.
On Crossfire, Jon Stewart is attacking CNN and the hosts by accusing the them of failing in their duty as a new outlet. From what I can see, Stewart is asking the news networks to be more like the news ticker and less theater. Ok, I admit it's not as simple as that. Now, my problem is: What is the maintream media's duty? In world where freedom of speech has a primordial importance, who can define what that duty is? We can present basically anything, although nothing shown is directly from journalism's own "volition". Most of it is what the newsmakers (as in the people the media reports on) want them to show and it's working. Although Stewart hasn't said what mainstream media should be, he sure has shown what he thinks it should not be.
The hosts of Crossfire argued that Stewart's show isn't much different from theirs in the partisanship perspective. Now, Stewart says in his defence that the Daily Show comes after a show about puppets who make prank phone calls and that his duty is not the same as that of news outlets (whatever that duty may be). If it weren't for the fact (not sure if it is) that many many people get their news from his show, I would agree. But, since many do, would it be reasonable to think that he also has the same responsibililty as CNN, beyond being funny? This responsibility was, in a way, shoved upon him, since the Daily Show does not proclaim itself as being a source for news.
Ok, this post is getting long and I'm rambling, so I'm going to end it here. You know what? Jon Stewart is successful in his duty. He went on Crossfire and told the world what he thought. And Daily Show's satire is more informative (even though it doesn't have to be) than CNN, so yeah, Jon is right, the mainstream media is in a pretty sad situation if some late night talk show on Comedy Central is better.