It looks like a lack of bias in favor of recent movies.
I disagree for two reasons.
First, I assume that like almost all other fields and industries, movie-making should in theory get better over the course of time, not stay the same. By the numbers, it looks like movie-making is in fact getting slightly worse, which I just don't think is true.
Second, there are a LOT more movies being put out today than there were back in the days of yore. I don't have the numbers on me, but how many movies come out in the 1990's versus the 1930's? It's got to be an order of magnitude, doesn't it? Assuming roughly the same ratio of cream to crap, there should logically be several times more movies listed from the 1990's than the 1930's, unless there's a bias that give a higher cream factor to movies put out in the 1930's.
Okay, here is the real link to the whole list. Note that the list isn't ranked (there is no "number one" movie...), it's just an alphabetized but otherwise unordered list.
I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies. Here's the breakdown by decade:
2000's: 5 movies
1990's: 10 movies
1980's: 12 movies
1970's: 9 movies
1960's: 15 movies
1950's: 16 movies
1940's: 15 movies
1930's: 12 movies
1920's: 6 movies
Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four? Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema? Were the '70's through '90's really worse than the '40's through '60's?
I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense to me that the best movies are getting progressively fewer and further between as time goes on. In general, movies that I consider "top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago. Writers can better relate to the culture I grew up in, they are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo, technology has greatly expanded the realm of the possible in movie-making, actors are much more real than they used to be, etc. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but hopefully you can see my point.
I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated. It's a little bit like saying that Beethoven is the best composer of all time when you know that if you start rooting through everyone's CD collections, you'll find tons more McCartney/Lennon and (sigh) Madonna. I'm not saying that I don't like old movies at all; one of my personal favorites is 12 Angry Men (didn't make the list), but I'm just talking about in general.
Some of my top choices (by entertainment value, not necessarily culturally significant) that didn't make the list would have to include, in no particular order (all links go to IMDB):
Okay, this is the last reply I'm going to post on this topic, because this is as close to a flame war as I want to get. If you want the last word, feel free to post a reply and I'll let everyone bask in your victory. I diligently try to avoid the soapbox like this, but man, you just caught me at just the wrong moment.
Your post is typical of someone who has had a relatively nice middle-class ride through life and doesn't truly know what it's like to be an ordinary working class schmoe. It's awful easy to say stuff like "become and investor" and "quit" when you have spare money to invest and could find another job relatively easily.
I'm guessing that you don't understand what it's like to have no spare money or to be forced to work a miserable job to keep food on the table because I'm guessing you can't relate. You think that you "pulled yourself up by the bootstraps" and "made yourself what you are today" because you went to college on your parent's dime and/or government-provided scholarship, grant, and/or student loan programs. If you lost your job today, I'm guessing you probably have money stashed away that you could fall back on, or at worst, a family that would find some way to take care of you. You think you've earned everything you have, and if someone else is poor, they're not unfortunate, they're just lazy because they didn't work as hard as you did.
Well, I've got some news; news that you will probably not believe because you've so successfully fooled yourself into believing that you've earned everything you have, but others reading will probably understand all too well. In America today, how hard you work has very little to do with how successful you are. I'm not saying the executives don't work hard, because a lot do. But they like to think that their sixty to eighty hours a week somehow entitles them to the lion's share of profit. Guess what: Sixty to eighty hours a weeks is a normal work week for a LOT of people who are barely making ends meet. In fact, some of the people in the corporate trenches would consider a sixty hour week a vacation.
These people would like nothing better than to find a good job somewhere else and quit, but the other company they go to will be just as bad, and they would lose any vested time in any pittance of a retirement plan they may have, vacation time they have built up for being at the company several years, and so on. So yeah, it's easy to armchair-manage people's lives, telling them to quit and lose what little they have for something worse, if you're not the one who will actually have to pay the price for it.
It's not like executives sit down with the grunts on the line and work out what everyone thinks is fair compensation for all employees. No, they TELL employees what they'll get, and that will be as little as they can get away with. These days, it's gotten even worse because many executives don't really even care about the long term well-being of the company, as long as they get their bonus this year and their golden parachute next year. As a general rule (exceptions are few and FAR between), the executives that can get away with screwing the employees the hardest will be the most lavishly rewarded for doing so. Why? It's built into the corporate culture. Their job is to maximize profit and minimize costs (i.e. things like salary and benefits for average schmoes). Being fair to the employees isn't part of the equation; in fact, it is a significant hinderance.
Bringing it back on-topic, most of the people working on the film AREN'T being paid what they're "supposed" to be paid. They're being paid the bare minimum they can be paid. Even though both are in a sad state under the constant attacks they've suffered lately, we fortunately have things like unions and liberals around to try to ensure that the bare minimum will at least allow these people to eat. They "signed up" for it not because it
I was in a hurry to get the post on here, so I missed the link in the geek.com story to the original article (non-Coral) at USA Today. That still doesn't change the fact that this kid got three months of a deferred jail sentence, three years of probation, 200 hours of community service (for those of you with a 40-hour a week job, that's five weeks off from work, or three months of weekends), $5,400 in fines, and he must take a class on copyright at the University (presumably at his own expense of time and money), and avoid file-sharing programs (I don't see any stipulation that the avoiding of file-sharing programs is limited to illegal downloads).
And in the article, it says that he was lucky that he was just a kid. If he had been older, the penalties would have been stiffer, including a mandatory three month jail sentence up front.
Oh, and I dug up the story from February 10 about the comparison between shoplifting and copyright infringement. Here is a link (non-Coral ) to the original article.
...in what way was Revenge of the Sith ripping people off?
I actually liked Revenge of the Sith, so I let others argue over whether the ticket price was a ripoff to see that particular movie.:-)
However, I don't need to argue about that. I can think of a few other ways we're being ripped off pretty quickly:
The studios diligently working to illegally take away my fair use rights of the movie.
The studios screwing movie theaters by making unreasonable monetary demands of the theaters that show their movies during the opening weeks. (Thus forcing theaters to pass the cost on to us by making us finance popcorn if we actually want a snack.)
The studios undermining my Constitutional freedom to copy the movie after a limited time.
Imposing excessive fines and punishment on a minor crime when copyright violators are caught. (I can't dig up the link offhand that I saw comparing the punishment for downloading a movie vs. stealing it from a store. Can anyone else help?)
The corporate executives at the studios screwing the vast majority of the people who worked on the film to keep most of the profit in the hands of a very small minority of people who did nothing to contribute to the film. (A big problem in big corporations, not limited to the film industry.)
The studios working together to keep the prices of DVDs artificially high.
That's just off the top of my head. Anyone else care to add to the list?
So no, not all profit-making is a ripoff. But that doesn't change the fact that some of it certainly is. And no, illegally downloading and/or sharing movies isn't legal or ethical. But in the grand scheme of things, I think it's a hell of a lot less serious an offense than what the movie studios and especially the **AA are doing.
Amen. I couldn't access the link until I copied-and-pasted the link into my address and removed the Coral suffix and port.
If anyone else reads this way-down comment, people like me sure would appreciate it if you posted both Coral and non-Coral links. Something like this example link (non-Coral) might be nice.
Yeah, I am really lazy, but I figure that your extra ten seconds of effort will save thousands of people an extra five seconds of effort. With the extra time humankind collectively saves, we could easily discover the cure to cancer within a year or so. Of course, I just used up a lot of people's extra time in posting this comment, so it looks like the cure will have to wait until 2007.
True, but you have to understand where I'm coming from. When I was in high school, I was a hardcore Star Trek fan, and yes I did memorize all 79 episode titles, along with guest stars, their characters, etc.
As a result of the incredibly hard time I endured for this nerdy obsession, I quickly learned to keep such things to myself. I'm still in that mode of denial today. I am not a nerd, I am not a nerd. If I say it enough times, I might convince myself. Part of that denial is saying stuff like, no, I didn't memorize all of the episodes of Firefly. I wouldn't want twenty years of denial to suddenly go to waste.
No it's not, but it could be a rare case of something being "Slashdotted" actually being a good thing. I wonder if people reading this story and/or comments thought, "Hey, I remember that show, it was fantastic! I'm going to order it..." I don't know, just speculation...
It depends. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that in some cultures in some eras of our history, whores were considered respectable women. (Examples, anyone?)
Besides, the Companions in Firefly weren't exactly high- or low-class, they were sort of in between. You could always tell that Mal had sort of a love-hate relationship with Inara. He really liked her, but he absolutely hated her profession. Even though many held her in high esteem, you could tell that some did not. Watch the episode "Shindig" to see this sort of high-class/low-class duality of the job.
Also worth noting is that not all "whores" in the Firefly universe were respectable, only registered Companions. There were presumably the cream of the crop, women of such exquisite quality that they were very well thought of. They also weren't "whores" in the sense of the word that you simply paid them for sex, they were also very highly educated women, trained in many arts and skills, who provided a sort of relationship fulfillment service, not just mere physical pleasure. Watch the episode "Heart of Gold" to see how the non-Companion whores were treated. They were low-class outcasts. Even today in the United States, this whore class system exists. The prostitutes at the brothels in Vegas are much better thought of than the whores on Seventh Avenue. Some porn stars are held in extremely high regard in a weird sort of way.
So I guess my point is that although it's different from the way we think of prostitutes today, it's not really too farfetched an idea.
And no, I didn't memorize all of the episodes of Firefly, I cheated.
try to ignore the goodwill you have towards Joss because of the first 3 seasons of Buffy, and realize that Firefly was pretty lame
Okay...
(Ignoring...)
Yep, Firefly still rocks.
Truth is, I didn't really care that much for Buffy or Angel. They were kinda sorta clever--"better than a lot of stuff on TV," as you put it--but not half as good as Firefly.
It is cowboys in space, for crying out loud! What could be better? It has interesting characters, can be funny and serious at the same time, an interesting plot... Definitely one of the best series that's ever been on.
And you think it's lame? I'm glad you at least conceded that it was better than a lot of stuff on tv. I want to pull my hair out whenever I see yet another Who Wants to Marry a Bachelor Idol Apprentice crapfest, or I see a bunch of press given to the end of another Everybody Loves My Formula Sitcom show. At least Firefly was somewhat original.
But that's just my opinion. I hope you have at least rented and watched the first one or two DVDs before you passed judgement. Fox really did screw up the series while it was running by not airing the episodes in order and constantly pre-empting it. What can you say about a network that airs the pilot--the exposition of the series--as the fickin' last episode!? It's not quite this bad, but can you imagine how confusing it would be to watch a season of episodes of a show like 24 all scrambled up?
Jesus, I am absolutely stupefied that people do this.
I've already written one comment about this in a different article and mentioned it in a blog post at my blog, so I'll try not to repeat that stuff here.
But for real, I'm truly saddened that the "RP" in MMORPG means so little these days. Everyone keeps taking about how much they hate grinding levels. Funny, when I used to play Dungeons and Dragons with my buddies, I never seemed to mind that my wizard was only level (whatever). Why? Because the point of the game wasn't to win, it was to have fun and (gasp!) socialize. Those of you who remember the old pencil-and-paper games, can you imagine a player offering a game master five bucks for 1,000 freebie gold pieces? If I were the game master, I would immediately figure out some heinous irrevocable death for that character.
What some people see as mindless grinding through levels, I see as an opportunity to meet other players, some of whom are rather interesting. What some people see as farming for game currency, I see as an opportunity to roleplay and boost my reputation. Not this silly reputation by ownership of a cool gametoy, but the reputation as someone who is fun and interesting to run missions with.
My MMORPG of choice is City of Heroes. One of my favorite characters is a Taxibot. We hardly ever level. We can't kill crap by ourselves. We have a lot of fun. The fun of the game isn't mindlessly killing mobs of enemies, although I do get fleeting enjoyment from figuring out strategies to defeat particularly tough enemies. The fun isn't even getting that new high-level power, although I do get fleeting enjoyment from seeing the cool effect of it. These things are supposed to add to the enjoyment of the game, not to be the enjoyment. My advice for MMORPG players (most MUD players figured this out a long time ago): If you really want to get long-term enjoyment from the game, get over that stuff quickly.
I get frustrated because I often wonder how many people even bother to read the mission descriptions they're given before they go to empty a warehouse full of villains. Sometimes I'll be in a group of people and I'll say something game-related ("We can't let Ubelmann succeed!"), and I often get responses that indicate that the people in my group have no clue ("Who's Ubelmann?"). Needless to say, those people don't get invited to run in a group with me again, and the people who do run with me regularly have lots of fun "grinding" levels, even if it is the 100th time we have been to disable the Rikti portal devices.
If level grinding has got you down and you've having so little fun that you feel the need to buy stuff on eBay or Sony's Station Exchange to use in the game, I'm begging you to play Progress Quest instead. We'll all have more fun, and you don't even have to spend a dime!
I know what the first replies to this post will be: Wah, people play games for different reasons. Yeah, well, if your reason is so that you can brag about your über-whatever with a gazillion gold to the lower levels, you're not playing at all; you're being a pompous ass that the game would be better off without. Do you go around in real life bragging about how much more money you've got than people on welfare? We're not impressed.
Damn, so much for keeping this post short. Oops, maybe I'll do better next time we have an "Buying virtual goods is a good thing" type of story.
Okay, maybe it's bad form to reply to my own submission, but just for the sake of more useless information, here are some links to wallpaper photos of Antonia Bayle.
There is also a bio of Antonia here (flash site) accessbile by navigating to The Game / lore / people.
And if anyone is remotely interested, her voice in the game is provided by Heather Graham. Come to think of it, whether or not anyone is remotely interested, her voice in the game is STILL provided by Heather Graham.
And sorry, TFA actually says that SOE "encourages women (sorry, fellas)" [my emphasis, their parentheses] to send in pictures. Okay, that's a lie, I'm not really sorry at all.
Well, I don't know if I would mod you arrogantly misleading, but perhaps grossly simplifying.
I mean, take hydrogen, oxygen, two very abundant elements in the solar system, and bam!, you have water.
It's not this easy. As I look around the room, I see gads of oxygen and hydrogen molecules. (Yes, I have very good eyesight!) I have bammed many times tonight, and yet still no water. Okay, some sweat on my Coke can--oh, and in my Coke--but that was water already formed; it doesn't count.
It's not like water just automatically spontaneously forms from hydrogen and oxygen (that whole entropy thing), it only happens under a specific set of circumstances as a specific reaction. Most of the hydrogen and oxygen in, on, and around the Earth is not water, although a lot of it is. It's contained in other molecules such as O2 (what we breathe in), CO2 (what we breathe out, of which there is LOTS on Mars), H2 (potential fuel panacea and, oh, what also blew the Hindenburg up), SiO2 (sand, of which we have plenty), and so on.
And we're not talking about looking for just a few free-floating water molecules. It's generally accepted (okay I admit, only by everyone I've asked, which is a group composed entirely of myself currently) that when one talks about "water on Mars," he or she is referring to a rather large collection of the stuff, such as in a lake, an icecap, or even an ice cube.
So no, I don't think it's so readily apparent that there is water on Mars, otherwise I have a tough time believing that scientists are so gung ho to spend billions of dollars to prove something that everyone knows is so painfully obvious.
I didn't say shut up, I said don't call the guy at his house. Bugging someone like this is harrassment because it is obvious that he already knows your opinion and does not agree.
If you disagree, then post your phone number in a reply and I'll be happy to call you and give you my full opinion.
I posted this on the forum at GamerDad as well because I grew up (and played pencil-and-paper RPGs) when all of the hysteria broke out about Dungeons and Dragons, and I don't want to see this kind of silliness again.
Characters can often be some type of priest serving a god who, in turn, provides that character with magical abilities like healing or protection. This could be uncomfortable for some families.
When I was growing up, I played RPGs a lot. My mom was a religious woman, and I knew that she was sometimes uncomfortable with me pretending to worship various deities and casting spells. (Yes, I was one of those who went through the occult motions that my character would.) As a kid, of course, I thought she was just being silly, since I was an active Christian member of my church and never got into any trouble.
The important thing for kids and parents to understand about these games is that they are just that--games. The worlds that gamemasters create are realms of fiction and fantasy. Although a quick spell may help a player's wizard get out of a sticky scrape, kids are smart enough to realize no amount of spellcasting will help them with that history test in fifth period tomorrow. If that is not true, then role-playing games are not the primary issue, and I suggest that you need to get psychological help for your child.
When I played role-playing games, it was for entertainment, nothing more. I also watched horror movies, like A Nightmare on Elm Street, and I was well aware of the difference between Freddy Kruger (the supernatural psychopathic killer) and Robert Englund (the actor that played Freddy). If I had met Robert in person, I would not have run away screaming in fear, I would likely have told him that I loved his movies and asked for an autograph. I also was well aware that there was no such thing as Freddy Kruger, and though I occasionally worried about various bumps in the night, I never was in any real fear of Freddy coming out from under my bed to get me.
Adults engage in this form of escapism as well. In The Passion of the Christ, an actor named Hristo Shopov portrayed Pontius Pilate. The actor, in his role-playing, recited lines to condemn Jesus Christ to death. I surely hope that concerned parents do not seriously have religious issues with Mr. Shopov accepting this role, and I surely hope that parents of children who play role-playing games do not mistake their entertainment as occult rituals.
I suggest that as a parent, it doesn't hurt to remind your child of the distinction between fantasy and reality occasionally, just as you would when explaining that the people on television and in movies are just pretending. But if you prohibit your child from playing role-playing games because of religious reasons, you could very well be creating or contributing to a problem with this distinction because you are assigning real qualities to something that is inherently make-believe.
I agree with Matt, a frank discussion of the issue is probably the best solution. Make sure that it is a real discussion in which the parent keeps a healthy perspective and truly recognizes these games for what they are.
I SO agree with this statement. When I used to watch TechTV, Adam was mildly amusing, but mostly annoying. I much prefered Leo and Patrick, Jim Louderback (the old host of Fresh Gear), Sumi Das (the new host of Fresh Gear), and I fell in love with Kris Kosach and Erica Hill (the latter now an anchorwoman on CNN Headline News--I'm glad she made with much success!)
Now I realize that when I watched Adam back then, I only thought I knew what annoying was. From what little I've watched of G4, I now truly know the meaning of the word. Now, he is by far the most amusing and intelligent person there.
Unfortunately, that's a little like saying that Mussolini was a pretty nice guy compared to Hitler--not much of a compliment. What I don't understand is why another network that is what TechTV (or ZDTV before that) used to be hasn't come along to compete. I know in my heart that it would kill G4 in the ratings, and maybe the powers-that-be there would realize what a horrible mistake they've made. If only I knew diddly about starting up a television network. (Insert wistful sigh here...)
Ah Leo Laporte, where have you gone now that we need you more than ever?
There was an article posted here a week ago that answers that. Funny enough, he is now doing a podcast of Revenge of The Screen Savers with Patrick Norton, Kevin Rose, and Robert Heron.
No, don't do that, otherwise, you'll be spreading the image of free software advocates as harrassing nutcases. What would this accomplish? Do you think that your comment will be the one that changes his mind, the one that causes him to turn from the dark side? Your time would be better spent advocating free software instead of attacking people who don't.
Also, is it so hard to imagine that you would be sued by this guy for harassment?
True story, posted so late now that it probably won't be read.
I was in a meeting at work one time, and we were discussing some serious issue or another. One of the guys referred to something as a "mute" point. I thought it was kind of funny, but I held the giggle in. After all, I was in an important business meeting. Well, you know what happens when you stifle a giggle, it comes back as a full-fledged laugh, and it's MUCH hard to stifle. Still, I'm pretty good, and I managed it. Well, then I felt kind of silly, because here we were discussing the future of our company, and I'm literally biting my tongue to keep from laughing.
Well, you KNOW what happens when you stifle a full-fledged laugh, it comes back as a sudden uncontrollable fit of laughing, the kind that is simply unstiflable.
So a full minute to two after the guy's comment about a "mute" point, after someone else has starting talking about something completely different, I burst out laughing so hard I just couldn't stop. The whole room turned to me as if to say, "What the hell is WRONG with this guy!?"
I was laughing SO hard that I could barely breathe. Forget talking, all I could squeak out was, "mute point... mute point!" Well, that didn't help any, of course, because by that time, I felt like a genuine idiot, and I had stepped in so far that all I could do was get up (still laughing), walk out (still laughing), and hope for the best.
After that incident, I think I widely had the reputation as the "crazy loon who laughed his ass out of an important meeting repeatedly saying, 'mute point.'" On the bright side, my presence at future meetings was seldom required. Of course, they never let me use any scissors after that, either...
Now, whenever I hear someone say "mute" point, I feel compelled to politely correct them because I do NOT want a similar incident to happen again. People, if there is a lesson to be learned here, it is to NEVER stifle a giggle.
To me, addiction is when you physically need something, without which you will suffer physical symptoms of withdrawal. Take away the something, and barring permanent damage caused by whatever it was, you'll be good to go to lead a happy, productive life.
Self-discipline is an ability to reasonably determine what is important and what is not, and to be able to consistently choose to accomplish that which is important. Lack of self-discipline often LEADS to various addictions, but it is not addiction itself.
I know, there is leeway in that determination of importance--that's where judgement comes in, and we all have lapses now and then. But clearly, choosing to play EverQuest instead of taking a final is a sign of an extreme lack of self-discipline, not addiction. I'm guessing that these people's parents probably never forced them as children to exercise self-discipline, and they have a VERY tough road ahead of them in life, a road that has very little to do with EverQuest or other games.
And I'm speaking not as a paragon of self-discipline, but as someone who has struggled with this very same problem for a while. (Let's not discuss MY college grades...) It takes a LOT of effort to change, and it's something I'm still working on. (I eventually finished with a pretty good GPA.)
Blaming something like this on addiction is in no way constructive, it simply allows one to avoid accountability and continue in one's misery. Realizing what it really is--a character flaw that must be acknowledged and changed in order to lead a happier life--allows one to actually DO something productive about it.
It's mainly the players that determine how much (or how little) an RPG is an RPG. I was mainly just lamenting that in all MMORPGs the vast majority of players invariably slide towards rollplaying instead of roleplaying.
However, I'm VERY disappointed that not only is Sony not discouraging this type of play, they are now actively encouraging it, facilitating it, and taking part in it. There's a huge difference, and it's all for a few lousy bucks. I echo Mark's sentiments when he says, "Shame on you."
I can't imagine EverQuest being any fun when the people who run it have such a crappy attitude towards their own game. What's next, for an extra fee each month, you'll level 10% faster? Again I ask, what's the point? At least let's be honest and start calling this genre MMOG's instead of MMORPG's.
Hmmm... I wonder how an MMORPG would go over if it got some of the players to rotate in and out as gamemasters and/or NPC's using some sort of/.'ish karma system (mod -1, irl-speak)? Maybe have some sort of in-game player-voting character ratings system (84% roleplayer, 12% court jester, 4% power leveler), with the ability to seek out characters with like traits? And if it would hide some of the game mechanics to keep people from obsessively stat-crunching? I dunno, those are some ideas off the top of my head.
Well I, for one, think that Mark Jacobs is 100% right.
I don't want to get all nostalgic, but does anyone else in here remember the ancient days of yore when an RPG was played with maps, miniatures, and funny-shaped dice, when the object of the game was to have fun by escaping into fantasy worlds and pretending you're someone else, someone who may be like you or may be as different from you as night and day? We used to make fun of people who got too much into the game mechanics. We called them "roll" players.
I feel sorry for people who have grown up recently and only know of RPG's as computer games. Something important has been lost when the creativity and imagination of a game master was replaced with a computer's unrelenting adherence to game rules and regulations. The goal is no longer to escape and have fun, it is to WIN. Now, players will do anything to have a bigger and better sword than the next guy has, who is trying to have a bigger and better axe than you have.
Don't get me wrong, I like some of the games out there today. I play City of Heroes myself, and I enjoy it a lot, but it's not the same. It's hard to feel very heroic when you have to deal with typical conversations like, "Hey, can you help me with a sewer run? I'm trying to get to level 38 and need to farm some krakens. We don't need to kill the hydra, because I'm only two bubbles away." When I stick solely to roleplaying and completely avoid game-speak, I get accused of being a weirdo and generally avoided. (Disclaimer: Yes, there are exceptions, very few and far between.)
The whole online auction stuff is a wonderful illustration of just how non-RP computer RPG's have become. I have a question for people who participate in such silliness: If you're not going to acquire your goodies by playing the game, why bother playing at all? Why not just stick to Progress Quest and save yourself all of that tedium of having to actually earn stuff?
As for Sony, I guess Mark covered it pretty well. Can't you see that what you're doing is hurting the genre of RPG's more than they already have been? What the hell does buying a sword on "Station Exchange" have to do with role playing? Nothing. In the article, Mark says:
We will gladly 'leave money on the table' to ensure that whether or not you like our games, that they remain as that, games and not an entertainment version of day-trading.
I say hooray for him and for Mythic for not selling out, once and for all making the R in RPG meaningless. As for me, I've never played EverQuest, and now you can count me out for good. Apparently, there's a large market of people out there playing this game who believe owning virtual goodies is more important than role playing, and because of this, it is obviously not a game I would be interested in.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like a lack of bias in favor of recent movies.
I disagree for two reasons.
First, I assume that like almost all other fields and industries, movie-making should in theory get better over the course of time, not stay the same. By the numbers, it looks like movie-making is in fact getting slightly worse, which I just don't think is true.
Second, there are a LOT more movies being put out today than there were back in the days of yore. I don't have the numbers on me, but how many movies come out in the 1990's versus the 1930's? It's got to be an order of magnitude, doesn't it? Assuming roughly the same ratio of cream to crap, there should logically be several times more movies listed from the 1990's than the 1930's, unless there's a bias that give a higher cream factor to movies put out in the 1930's.
Okay, here is the real link to the whole list. Note that the list isn't ranked (there is no "number one" movie...), it's just an alphabetized but otherwise unordered list.
I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies. Here's the breakdown by decade:
Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four? Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema? Were the '70's through '90's really worse than the '40's through '60's?
I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense to me that the best movies are getting progressively fewer and further between as time goes on. In general, movies that I consider "top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago. Writers can better relate to the culture I grew up in, they are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo, technology has greatly expanded the realm of the possible in movie-making, actors are much more real than they used to be, etc. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but hopefully you can see my point.
I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated. It's a little bit like saying that Beethoven is the best composer of all time when you know that if you start rooting through everyone's CD collections, you'll find tons more McCartney/Lennon and (sigh) Madonna. I'm not saying that I don't like old movies at all; one of my personal favorites is 12 Angry Men (didn't make the list), but I'm just talking about in general.
Some of my top choices (by entertainment value, not necessarily culturally significant) that didn't make the list would have to include, in no particular order (all links go to IMDB):
Raiders of the Lost Ark (leaving this one off is, in my humble opinion, the most egregious sin), Rat Race, The Usual Suspects, Independence Day, Ghost Busters, The Majestic, Airplane!, The Professional, The Shawshank Redemption, Back to the Future, Toy Story, Mr. Holland's Opus, Galaxy Quest, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Primal Fear, The Matrix, Superman, ...
(I'll stop boring you with my list now.)
<rant style="rant-type:soapbox;">
they can either become investors or quit
Okay, this is the last reply I'm going to post on this topic, because this is as close to a flame war as I want to get. If you want the last word, feel free to post a reply and I'll let everyone bask in your victory. I diligently try to avoid the soapbox like this, but man, you just caught me at just the wrong moment.
Your post is typical of someone who has had a relatively nice middle-class ride through life and doesn't truly know what it's like to be an ordinary working class schmoe. It's awful easy to say stuff like "become and investor" and "quit" when you have spare money to invest and could find another job relatively easily.
I'm guessing that you don't understand what it's like to have no spare money or to be forced to work a miserable job to keep food on the table because I'm guessing you can't relate. You think that you "pulled yourself up by the bootstraps" and "made yourself what you are today" because you went to college on your parent's dime and/or government-provided scholarship, grant, and/or student loan programs. If you lost your job today, I'm guessing you probably have money stashed away that you could fall back on, or at worst, a family that would find some way to take care of you. You think you've earned everything you have, and if someone else is poor, they're not unfortunate, they're just lazy because they didn't work as hard as you did.
Well, I've got some news; news that you will probably not believe because you've so successfully fooled yourself into believing that you've earned everything you have, but others reading will probably understand all too well. In America today, how hard you work has very little to do with how successful you are. I'm not saying the executives don't work hard, because a lot do. But they like to think that their sixty to eighty hours a week somehow entitles them to the lion's share of profit. Guess what: Sixty to eighty hours a weeks is a normal work week for a LOT of people who are barely making ends meet. In fact, some of the people in the corporate trenches would consider a sixty hour week a vacation.
These people would like nothing better than to find a good job somewhere else and quit, but the other company they go to will be just as bad, and they would lose any vested time in any pittance of a retirement plan they may have, vacation time they have built up for being at the company several years, and so on. So yeah, it's easy to armchair-manage people's lives, telling them to quit and lose what little they have for something worse, if you're not the one who will actually have to pay the price for it.
It's not like executives sit down with the grunts on the line and work out what everyone thinks is fair compensation for all employees. No, they TELL employees what they'll get, and that will be as little as they can get away with. These days, it's gotten even worse because many executives don't really even care about the long term well-being of the company, as long as they get their bonus this year and their golden parachute next year. As a general rule (exceptions are few and FAR between), the executives that can get away with screwing the employees the hardest will be the most lavishly rewarded for doing so. Why? It's built into the corporate culture. Their job is to maximize profit and minimize costs (i.e. things like salary and benefits for average schmoes). Being fair to the employees isn't part of the equation; in fact, it is a significant hinderance.
Bringing it back on-topic, most of the people working on the film AREN'T being paid what they're "supposed" to be paid. They're being paid the bare minimum they can be paid. Even though both are in a sad state under the constant attacks they've suffered lately, we fortunately have things like unions and liberals around to try to ensure that the bare minimum will at least allow these people to eat. They "signed up" for it not because it
I was in a hurry to get the post on here, so I missed the link in the geek.com story to the original article (non-Coral) at USA Today. That still doesn't change the fact that this kid got three months of a deferred jail sentence, three years of probation, 200 hours of community service (for those of you with a 40-hour a week job, that's five weeks off from work, or three months of weekends), $5,400 in fines, and he must take a class on copyright at the University (presumably at his own expense of time and money), and avoid file-sharing programs (I don't see any stipulation that the avoiding of file-sharing programs is limited to illegal downloads).
And in the article, it says that he was lucky that he was just a kid. If he had been older, the penalties would have been stiffer, including a mandatory three month jail sentence up front.
Oh, and I dug up the story from February 10 about the comparison between shoplifting and copyright infringement. Here is a link (non-Coral ) to the original article.
I actually liked Revenge of the Sith, so I let others argue over whether the ticket price was a ripoff to see that particular movie. :-)
However, I don't need to argue about that. I can think of a few other ways we're being ripped off pretty quickly:
That's just off the top of my head. Anyone else care to add to the list?
So no, not all profit-making is a ripoff. But that doesn't change the fact that some of it certainly is. And no, illegally downloading and/or sharing movies isn't legal or ethical. But in the grand scheme of things, I think it's a hell of a lot less serious an offense than what the movie studios and especially the **AA are doing.
So Palm is now the company formerly known as the company formerly known as... Palm?
Amen. I couldn't access the link until I copied-and-pasted the link into my address and removed the Coral suffix and port.
If anyone else reads this way-down comment, people like me sure would appreciate it if you posted both Coral and non-Coral links. Something like this example link (non-Coral) might be nice.
Yeah, I am really lazy, but I figure that your extra ten seconds of effort will save thousands of people an extra five seconds of effort. With the extra time humankind collectively saves, we could easily discover the cure to cancer within a year or so. Of course, I just used up a lot of people's extra time in posting this comment, so it looks like the cure will have to wait until 2007.
Oh, come on, it's not that hard
True, but you have to understand where I'm coming from. When I was in high school, I was a hardcore Star Trek fan, and yes I did memorize all 79 episode titles, along with guest stars, their characters, etc.
As a result of the incredibly hard time I endured for this nerdy obsession, I quickly learned to keep such things to myself. I'm still in that mode of denial today. I am not a nerd, I am not a nerd. If I say it enough times, I might convince myself. Part of that denial is saying stuff like, no, I didn't memorize all of the episodes of Firefly. I wouldn't want twenty years of denial to suddenly go to waste.
No it's not, but it could be a rare case of something being "Slashdotted" actually being a good thing. I wonder if people reading this story and/or comments thought, "Hey, I remember that show, it was fantastic! I'm going to order it..." I don't know, just speculation...
It depends. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that in some cultures in some eras of our history, whores were considered respectable women. (Examples, anyone?)
Besides, the Companions in Firefly weren't exactly high- or low-class, they were sort of in between. You could always tell that Mal had sort of a love-hate relationship with Inara. He really liked her, but he absolutely hated her profession. Even though many held her in high esteem, you could tell that some did not. Watch the episode "Shindig" to see this sort of high-class/low-class duality of the job.
Also worth noting is that not all "whores" in the Firefly universe were respectable, only registered Companions. There were presumably the cream of the crop, women of such exquisite quality that they were very well thought of. They also weren't "whores" in the sense of the word that you simply paid them for sex, they were also very highly educated women, trained in many arts and skills, who provided a sort of relationship fulfillment service, not just mere physical pleasure. Watch the episode "Heart of Gold" to see how the non-Companion whores were treated. They were low-class outcasts. Even today in the United States, this whore class system exists. The prostitutes at the brothels in Vegas are much better thought of than the whores on Seventh Avenue. Some porn stars are held in extremely high regard in a weird sort of way.
So I guess my point is that although it's different from the way we think of prostitutes today, it's not really too farfetched an idea.
And no, I didn't memorize all of the episodes of Firefly, I cheated.
try to ignore the goodwill you have towards Joss because of the first 3 seasons of Buffy, and realize that Firefly was pretty lame
Okay...
(Ignoring...)
Yep, Firefly still rocks.
Truth is, I didn't really care that much for Buffy or Angel. They were kinda sorta clever--"better than a lot of stuff on TV," as you put it--but not half as good as Firefly.
It is cowboys in space, for crying out loud! What could be better? It has interesting characters, can be funny and serious at the same time, an interesting plot... Definitely one of the best series that's ever been on.
And you think it's lame? I'm glad you at least conceded that it was better than a lot of stuff on tv. I want to pull my hair out whenever I see yet another Who Wants to Marry a Bachelor Idol Apprentice crapfest, or I see a bunch of press given to the end of another Everybody Loves My Formula Sitcom show. At least Firefly was somewhat original.
But that's just my opinion. I hope you have at least rented and watched the first one or two DVDs before you passed judgement. Fox really did screw up the series while it was running by not airing the episodes in order and constantly pre-empting it. What can you say about a network that airs the pilot--the exposition of the series--as the fickin' last episode!? It's not quite this bad, but can you imagine how confusing it would be to watch a season of episodes of a show like 24 all scrambled up?
KITT had two very hot "doctors" dedicated to keeping him well and in shape. Remember Bonnie and April?
Jesus, I am absolutely stupefied that people do this.
I've already written one comment about this in a different article and mentioned it in a blog post at my blog, so I'll try not to repeat that stuff here.
But for real, I'm truly saddened that the "RP" in MMORPG means so little these days. Everyone keeps taking about how much they hate grinding levels. Funny, when I used to play Dungeons and Dragons with my buddies, I never seemed to mind that my wizard was only level (whatever). Why? Because the point of the game wasn't to win, it was to have fun and (gasp!) socialize. Those of you who remember the old pencil-and-paper games, can you imagine a player offering a game master five bucks for 1,000 freebie gold pieces? If I were the game master, I would immediately figure out some heinous irrevocable death for that character.
What some people see as mindless grinding through levels, I see as an opportunity to meet other players, some of whom are rather interesting. What some people see as farming for game currency, I see as an opportunity to roleplay and boost my reputation. Not this silly reputation by ownership of a cool gametoy, but the reputation as someone who is fun and interesting to run missions with.
My MMORPG of choice is City of Heroes. One of my favorite characters is a Taxibot. We hardly ever level. We can't kill crap by ourselves. We have a lot of fun. The fun of the game isn't mindlessly killing mobs of enemies, although I do get fleeting enjoyment from figuring out strategies to defeat particularly tough enemies. The fun isn't even getting that new high-level power, although I do get fleeting enjoyment from seeing the cool effect of it. These things are supposed to add to the enjoyment of the game, not to be the enjoyment. My advice for MMORPG players (most MUD players figured this out a long time ago): If you really want to get long-term enjoyment from the game, get over that stuff quickly.
I get frustrated because I often wonder how many people even bother to read the mission descriptions they're given before they go to empty a warehouse full of villains. Sometimes I'll be in a group of people and I'll say something game-related ("We can't let Ubelmann succeed!"), and I often get responses that indicate that the people in my group have no clue ("Who's Ubelmann?"). Needless to say, those people don't get invited to run in a group with me again, and the people who do run with me regularly have lots of fun "grinding" levels, even if it is the 100th time we have been to disable the Rikti portal devices.
If level grinding has got you down and you've having so little fun that you feel the need to buy stuff on eBay or Sony's Station Exchange to use in the game, I'm begging you to play Progress Quest instead. We'll all have more fun, and you don't even have to spend a dime!
I know what the first replies to this post will be: Wah, people play games for different reasons. Yeah, well, if your reason is so that you can brag about your über-whatever with a gazillion gold to the lower levels, you're not playing at all; you're being a pompous ass that the game would be better off without. Do you go around in real life bragging about how much more money you've got than people on welfare? We're not impressed.
Damn, so much for keeping this post short. Oops, maybe I'll do better next time we have an "Buying virtual goods is a good thing" type of story.
Okay, maybe it's bad form to reply to my own submission, but just for the sake of more useless information, here are some links to wallpaper photos of Antonia Bayle.
Picture 1:
800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, Oh my god, she's HUGE!
Picture 2 (for dual monitors):
1600x600, 2048x768, 2560x960, I can hang this up in my bedroom!
There is also a bio of Antonia here (flash site) accessbile by navigating to The Game / lore / people.
And if anyone is remotely interested, her voice in the game is provided by Heather Graham. Come to think of it, whether or not anyone is remotely interested, her voice in the game is STILL provided by Heather Graham.
And sorry, TFA actually says that SOE "encourages women (sorry, fellas)" [my emphasis, their parentheses] to send in pictures. Okay, that's a lie, I'm not really sorry at all.
Well, I don't know if I would mod you arrogantly misleading, but perhaps grossly simplifying.
I mean, take hydrogen, oxygen, two very abundant elements in the solar system, and bam!, you have water.
It's not this easy. As I look around the room, I see gads of oxygen and hydrogen molecules. (Yes, I have very good eyesight!) I have bammed many times tonight, and yet still no water. Okay, some sweat on my Coke can--oh, and in my Coke--but that was water already formed; it doesn't count.
It's not like water just automatically spontaneously forms from hydrogen and oxygen (that whole entropy thing), it only happens under a specific set of circumstances as a specific reaction. Most of the hydrogen and oxygen in, on, and around the Earth is not water, although a lot of it is. It's contained in other molecules such as O2 (what we breathe in), CO2 (what we breathe out, of which there is LOTS on Mars), H2 (potential fuel panacea and, oh, what also blew the Hindenburg up), SiO2 (sand, of which we have plenty), and so on.
And we're not talking about looking for just a few free-floating water molecules. It's generally accepted (okay I admit, only by everyone I've asked, which is a group composed entirely of myself currently) that when one talks about "water on Mars," he or she is referring to a rather large collection of the stuff, such as in a lake, an icecap, or even an ice cube.
So no, I don't think it's so readily apparent that there is water on Mars, otherwise I have a tough time believing that scientists are so gung ho to spend billions of dollars to prove something that everyone knows is so painfully obvious.
Oh hey, I remember you now! Hey, did you every try it out? It's at this site! Hurry and download it, because remember...
I know where you shop.
(Insert quiet psychopathic stare here.)
(You do know I'm kidding right? I don't know you...)
I didn't say shut up, I said don't call the guy at his house. Bugging someone like this is harrassment because it is obvious that he already knows your opinion and does not agree.
If you disagree, then post your phone number in a reply and I'll be happy to call you and give you my full opinion.
I posted this on the forum at GamerDad as well because I grew up (and played pencil-and-paper RPGs) when all of the hysteria broke out about Dungeons and Dragons, and I don't want to see this kind of silliness again.
Characters can often be some type of priest serving a god who, in turn, provides that character with magical abilities like healing or protection. This could be uncomfortable for some families.
When I was growing up, I played RPGs a lot. My mom was a religious woman, and I knew that she was sometimes uncomfortable with me pretending to worship various deities and casting spells. (Yes, I was one of those who went through the occult motions that my character would.) As a kid, of course, I thought she was just being silly, since I was an active Christian member of my church and never got into any trouble.
The important thing for kids and parents to understand about these games is that they are just that--games. The worlds that gamemasters create are realms of fiction and fantasy. Although a quick spell may help a player's wizard get out of a sticky scrape, kids are smart enough to realize no amount of spellcasting will help them with that history test in fifth period tomorrow. If that is not true, then role-playing games are not the primary issue, and I suggest that you need to get psychological help for your child.
When I played role-playing games, it was for entertainment, nothing more. I also watched horror movies, like A Nightmare on Elm Street, and I was well aware of the difference between Freddy Kruger (the supernatural psychopathic killer) and Robert Englund (the actor that played Freddy). If I had met Robert in person, I would not have run away screaming in fear, I would likely have told him that I loved his movies and asked for an autograph. I also was well aware that there was no such thing as Freddy Kruger, and though I occasionally worried about various bumps in the night, I never was in any real fear of Freddy coming out from under my bed to get me.
Adults engage in this form of escapism as well. In The Passion of the Christ, an actor named Hristo Shopov portrayed Pontius Pilate. The actor, in his role-playing, recited lines to condemn Jesus Christ to death. I surely hope that concerned parents do not seriously have religious issues with Mr. Shopov accepting this role, and I surely hope that parents of children who play role-playing games do not mistake their entertainment as occult rituals.
I suggest that as a parent, it doesn't hurt to remind your child of the distinction between fantasy and reality occasionally, just as you would when explaining that the people on television and in movies are just pretending. But if you prohibit your child from playing role-playing games because of religious reasons, you could very well be creating or contributing to a problem with this distinction because you are assigning real qualities to something that is inherently make-believe.
I agree with Matt, a frank discussion of the issue is probably the best solution. Make sure that it is a real discussion in which the parent keeps a healthy perspective and truly recognizes these games for what they are.
I SO agree with this statement. When I used to watch TechTV, Adam was mildly amusing, but mostly annoying. I much prefered Leo and Patrick, Jim Louderback (the old host of Fresh Gear), Sumi Das (the new host of Fresh Gear), and I fell in love with Kris Kosach and Erica Hill (the latter now an anchorwoman on CNN Headline News--I'm glad she made with much success!)
Now I realize that when I watched Adam back then, I only thought I knew what annoying was. From what little I've watched of G4, I now truly know the meaning of the word. Now, he is by far the most amusing and intelligent person there.
Unfortunately, that's a little like saying that Mussolini was a pretty nice guy compared to Hitler--not much of a compliment. What I don't understand is why another network that is what TechTV (or ZDTV before that) used to be hasn't come along to compete. I know in my heart that it would kill G4 in the ratings, and maybe the powers-that-be there would realize what a horrible mistake they've made. If only I knew diddly about starting up a television network. (Insert wistful sigh here...)
Ah Leo Laporte, where have you gone now that we need you more than ever?
There was an article posted here a week ago that answers that. Funny enough, he is now doing a podcast of Revenge of The Screen Savers with Patrick Norton, Kevin Rose, and Robert Heron.
No, don't do that, otherwise, you'll be spreading the image of free software advocates as harrassing nutcases. What would this accomplish? Do you think that your comment will be the one that changes his mind, the one that causes him to turn from the dark side? Your time would be better spent advocating free software instead of attacking people who don't.
Also, is it so hard to imagine that you would be sued by this guy for harassment?
True story, posted so late now that it probably won't be read.
I was in a meeting at work one time, and we were discussing some serious issue or another. One of the guys referred to something as a "mute" point. I thought it was kind of funny, but I held the giggle in. After all, I was in an important business meeting. Well, you know what happens when you stifle a giggle, it comes back as a full-fledged laugh, and it's MUCH hard to stifle. Still, I'm pretty good, and I managed it. Well, then I felt kind of silly, because here we were discussing the future of our company, and I'm literally biting my tongue to keep from laughing.
Well, you KNOW what happens when you stifle a full-fledged laugh, it comes back as a sudden uncontrollable fit of laughing, the kind that is simply unstiflable.
So a full minute to two after the guy's comment about a "mute" point, after someone else has starting talking about something completely different, I burst out laughing so hard I just couldn't stop. The whole room turned to me as if to say, "What the hell is WRONG with this guy!?"
I was laughing SO hard that I could barely breathe. Forget talking, all I could squeak out was, "mute point... mute point!" Well, that didn't help any, of course, because by that time, I felt like a genuine idiot, and I had stepped in so far that all I could do was get up (still laughing), walk out (still laughing), and hope for the best.
After that incident, I think I widely had the reputation as the "crazy loon who laughed his ass out of an important meeting repeatedly saying, 'mute point.'" On the bright side, my presence at future meetings was seldom required. Of course, they never let me use any scissors after that, either...
Now, whenever I hear someone say "mute" point, I feel compelled to politely correct them because I do NOT want a similar incident to happen again. People, if there is a lesson to be learned here, it is to NEVER stifle a giggle.
To me, addiction is when you physically need something, without which you will suffer physical symptoms of withdrawal. Take away the something, and barring permanent damage caused by whatever it was, you'll be good to go to lead a happy, productive life.
Self-discipline is an ability to reasonably determine what is important and what is not, and to be able to consistently choose to accomplish that which is important. Lack of self-discipline often LEADS to various addictions, but it is not addiction itself.
I know, there is leeway in that determination of importance--that's where judgement comes in, and we all have lapses now and then. But clearly, choosing to play EverQuest instead of taking a final is a sign of an extreme lack of self-discipline, not addiction. I'm guessing that these people's parents probably never forced them as children to exercise self-discipline, and they have a VERY tough road ahead of them in life, a road that has very little to do with EverQuest or other games.
And I'm speaking not as a paragon of self-discipline, but as someone who has struggled with this very same problem for a while. (Let's not discuss MY college grades...) It takes a LOT of effort to change, and it's something I'm still working on. (I eventually finished with a pretty good GPA.)
Blaming something like this on addiction is in no way constructive, it simply allows one to avoid accountability and continue in one's misery. Realizing what it really is--a character flaw that must be acknowledged and changed in order to lead a happier life--allows one to actually DO something productive about it.
That's my 2c's worth, now you owe me change.
It's mainly the players that determine how much (or how little) an RPG is an RPG. I was mainly just lamenting that in all MMORPGs the vast majority of players invariably slide towards rollplaying instead of roleplaying.
However, I'm VERY disappointed that not only is Sony not discouraging this type of play, they are now actively encouraging it, facilitating it, and taking part in it. There's a huge difference, and it's all for a few lousy bucks. I echo Mark's sentiments when he says, "Shame on you."
I can't imagine EverQuest being any fun when the people who run it have such a crappy attitude towards their own game. What's next, for an extra fee each month, you'll level 10% faster? Again I ask, what's the point? At least let's be honest and start calling this genre MMOG's instead of MMORPG's.
Hmmm... I wonder how an MMORPG would go over if it got some of the players to rotate in and out as gamemasters and/or NPC's using some sort of /.'ish karma system (mod -1, irl-speak)? Maybe have some sort of in-game player-voting character ratings system (84% roleplayer, 12% court jester, 4% power leveler), with the ability to seek out characters with like traits? And if it would hide some of the game mechanics to keep people from obsessively stat-crunching? I dunno, those are some ideas off the top of my head.
Well I, for one, think that Mark Jacobs is 100% right.
I don't want to get all nostalgic, but does anyone else in here remember the ancient days of yore when an RPG was played with maps, miniatures, and funny-shaped dice, when the object of the game was to have fun by escaping into fantasy worlds and pretending you're someone else, someone who may be like you or may be as different from you as night and day? We used to make fun of people who got too much into the game mechanics. We called them "roll" players.
I feel sorry for people who have grown up recently and only know of RPG's as computer games. Something important has been lost when the creativity and imagination of a game master was replaced with a computer's unrelenting adherence to game rules and regulations. The goal is no longer to escape and have fun, it is to WIN. Now, players will do anything to have a bigger and better sword than the next guy has, who is trying to have a bigger and better axe than you have.
Don't get me wrong, I like some of the games out there today. I play City of Heroes myself, and I enjoy it a lot, but it's not the same. It's hard to feel very heroic when you have to deal with typical conversations like, "Hey, can you help me with a sewer run? I'm trying to get to level 38 and need to farm some krakens. We don't need to kill the hydra, because I'm only two bubbles away." When I stick solely to roleplaying and completely avoid game-speak, I get accused of being a weirdo and generally avoided. (Disclaimer: Yes, there are exceptions, very few and far between.)
The whole online auction stuff is a wonderful illustration of just how non-RP computer RPG's have become. I have a question for people who participate in such silliness: If you're not going to acquire your goodies by playing the game, why bother playing at all? Why not just stick to Progress Quest and save yourself all of that tedium of having to actually earn stuff?
As for Sony, I guess Mark covered it pretty well. Can't you see that what you're doing is hurting the genre of RPG's more than they already have been? What the hell does buying a sword on "Station Exchange" have to do with role playing? Nothing. In the article, Mark says:
We will gladly 'leave money on the table' to ensure that whether or not you like our games, that they remain as that, games and not an entertainment version of day-trading.
I say hooray for him and for Mythic for not selling out, once and for all making the R in RPG meaningless. As for me, I've never played EverQuest, and now you can count me out for good. Apparently, there's a large market of people out there playing this game who believe owning virtual goodies is more important than role playing, and because of this, it is obviously not a game I would be interested in.