Did you miss where very popular liberal democrats are also behind this sort of thing?
Who says that those so-called "liberals" can't be social conservatives? Seriously, what on earth gave you the idea that either political party has any interest whatsoever in liberty?
In the US, the repubs are pushing social conservatism on religious grounds (abortion, gay marriage and the like), while the dems are pushing that same sort of social conservatism on censorship grounds ("think of the children!"). It's just a question of what you want banned, and on whose behalf.
There are no major political leaders whose platforms are based on either classical liberalism or conservatism. Those ideals have been so warped as to become unrecognizable.
Except that movie ratings are enforced voluntarily, by the theaters. It's the equivalent to Wal-mart refusing to sell M rated games to minors; it's not mandated by law.
As for fair grounds, those restrictions are for safety reasons. Short children would be at risk of personal injury if they rode attractions meant for taller participants. Essentially they're no different from rules requireing you to wear a hardhat at a construction site; it has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with avoiding loss of limb or life.
Re:What will it become?
on
The End of E3?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
We tend to abbreviate EEE as E3. Ergo CCC turns into C3... I admit it took me a minute too.:-)
Perhaps I'm being overly technical, but it doesn't seem like "copyright restrictions" are really the issue so much as creative control, or perhaps "continuity restrictions". SWG (I'm was in from Beta 2 until a year and a half after launch) suffered from a muddied vision of what the game should be, and from an overly ambitious release schedule. Further, there have always been anecdotal reports that LucasArts exerted a great deal of oversight over SOE. The designers originally had Jedi as an ultra-rare mystical thing, and then people discovered it was simply a profession grind for a class which wasn't necessarily well thought out. I maintain to this day that Jedi should have been chosen by special GM's hired just to find Jedi, but that's a topic for another day.
The way I see it, they tried to pursue two mutually exclusive goals here. They wanted the game to tie into the movies, and they wanted it to include PC-controlled jedi. Now, given that jedi are supposed to be almost completely extinct in the movies, the developers and/or lucasarts wound up with an unworkable situation.
They should have either dropped the jedi angle altogether, and stuck with the rest of star wars as their setting, or they should have set the game in another era. I'd have gone with the latter - the KotOR games did that remarkably well. Plus, as an added bonus, if they'd done the game in an earlier era they could have included player-controlled sith as well, which would have been a huge selling point...
Technically, all the big bang requires is for all the matter and energy in the universe to have been compressed together at one point, and subsequently exploded outwards in all directions. The theory got started based on the observable expansion of the universe.
Who's to say that the point of focused matter and energy must be a singularity?
Probably not. From what I gathered, the two objects are both presumed, by different theories, to occur when matter is compressed past a certain point. Presumably, collapse of matter has to yield one result or the other, depending on what theory is correct. I don't see any way we could get both in the same universe.
And as these are both theoretical objects, there's no reason to assume they both exist.
Just because *you* and many other gamers don't have a problem doesn't mean that games are not addictive.
Do you have some sort of problem with basic reading comprehension?
I said, and I quote:
I could compare my gaming experience to a real addict and conclude that there are no gaming addicts for that matter - I'd be wrong, and I'd be commiting the same falacy that you just did.
Games are addictive. TV is addictive. Gambling is addictive. Work is addictive. Religion is too. What part of this don't you understand? You can get addicted to just about anything that pushes the right buttons, and bosses, preachers, TV producers, casino managers and game designers know how to push those buttons remarkably well.
Emphasis added, since you seem to have missed it the first time.
What part of that was hard to comprehend? Seriously, you just vehemently argued against a position that I never took.
Because they're not prostituting themselves, dying or committing criminal behavior, it's not a problem? That's your threshold for whether someone is deserving of help?
Put simply, yes.
I'm being a bit glib here, so let me explain. The clinic, and the anti-gaming crowd more generally are treating game-playing habits as pathological; they are treating gaming as a disease. Now, I don't view all addicts as diseased - I drawn a distinction based on what damage the addiction causes.
People hooked on games, television, caffine, porn or work are only hurting themselves. We don't consider a workaholic to be an "addict" even though their behaviour is a classic example of psychological addiction - in fact in many circles that addiction is considered a positive trait, despite it's obviously self-destructive tendancies.
Where I, and most people, would draw the line is where the problem escalates from being wholly contained within the addict's life, and spilling over into the lives of others. Then, and only then, will I view the addiction as a societal disease. The difference between the two is much akin to the difference between a benign and malignant tumor.
Hard drugs are a blight in our society, or they can be at least. People who use them not only suffer themselves, but also spread that suffering to others. Hell, even smoking can be considered a disease in this regard; second hand smoke is a major risk factor for developing cancer. Gambling addicts are problematic, as I'm sure gambling addiction can be linked to illegal activities like theft or fraud to fund the addict's habit.
See the distinction? A caffine addict and a crack addict, as the GP pointed out, are both hooked. The reason we consider crack a problem and not coffee is because the worst thing coffee can do is ruin people's mental health and give otherwise normal sleepers insomnia; this is nothing when compared to the damage a crack addict causes.
So, does gaming addiction carry over into the lives of others like the example given of crack addiction? Of course not. In fact, from all the input from game addicts into this thread, I can only conclude that the problem is self-limiting - they all describe their addiction as having ruined their own lives, not the lives of others.
I know that sounds harsh, but my view is that people's self-destructive tendacies are their own business; it's up to the afflicted to seek help. I'm not opposed to the clinic, anymore than I'm opposed to any other venue for allowing addicts a way to cope. What I'm opposed to is the attitude that games be treated like a controlled substance.
If we are to treat games as pathological, then we must extend that treatment to all other forms of self-destructive addiction. Games are being singled out here; where is the clinic for couch potatoes whiling away their lives in front of the boob tube? Oh that's right, TV is socially acceptable and games are not...
On the contrary, I wasn't calling you a liar. I took your story at face value, and assumed it was true. However, you asked "Do most people ____ to watch TV" after telling me your story. Now, this can be taken two ways:
1. You were comparing your own life to the lives of the vast majority of TV watchers, and concluding that there are no TV addicts with problems like your own. This is the logical fallacy I refered to. To compare a minority to a majority, and conclude that the minority doesn't exist is flase logic.
TV addicts would be in the minority, much like game addicts. Asking me what I think that "most" TV watchers do (when most of them wouldn't be addicts) is what I was calling you on. I stated that "both games and TV are potentially addicting" (note the qualifier of "potential"); you can't discount that on the basis of the fact that most TV watchers aren't addicts.
2. Alternatively you could have meant that you think most gamers are also addicts. I find this hard to beleive, but if you do think this, then comparing "most" gamers to "most" TV watchers would be valid.
Since I doubt the second one, I assumed the first was what you meant. It was not your life I was reffering to when I stated you had argued a fallacy, it was that statement regarding TV watchers.
Most people who enjoy TV, games, booze or sex aren't addicts. Addicts are the exception, not the rule, except with cases like highly addictive substances (street drugs and nicotine being the two most obvious). Psychological addiction can occur with any pleasurable activity; why should games be singled out as abnormal?
Do you have any evidence at all that gaming "addicts" are a problem? Even the examples from TFA seem to indicate the problem is self-limiting. Certainly no where near the issue that drug addiction is.
The people shown as examples of gaming addicts are only hurting themselves financially and socially. They aren't dying, or commiting crimes, or selling their bodies; this is nothing remotely like crack addiction. Fundamentally, I don't see why they should be considered a problem, and couch potatoes ignored. And again, treating games like controlled or illegal substances is pure unadulterated FUD, no more, no less.
Tell me, do most people you that watch tv alot lose their jobs because of it? Do they lose their life and friends? Do they lose a wife/husband/kids because they watch too much? Do they wake up in the middle of the night craving tv time? Cut work to watch tv? Break dates to watch tv?
Most people? No. Most of the drinkers I know don't get the DTs if they have to stay sober for a week either though. Shall I therefor conclude that there are no alcoholics, as you have concluded that there are no TV addicts? Compare the minority to the majority, and conclude that there is no minority? Sure, that's logical...
And I'm a gamer - and the description of your addiction is so far removed from my own habit (and the habits of every other gamer I've met) that you might as well be talking about a completely different activity. So I'd have to say that your addiction is unusual. And yes, I've played MMOs, and no I never knew anyone who had problems like the ones you describe. Maybe EQ was different or something, but for me and the other members of my WoW guild, none of us ever seemed to have trouble logging off for real life.
Most users of just about anything other than highly addictive drugs aren't addicts themselves. Addicts are the exception, not the rule. Do you think your example is typical of most gamers?
The aformentioned "borderline TV addict" I know doesn't have alot of attachments, other than his job. Likewise, one of the alcoholics I've known held down a teaching job for decades, and raised a family. Not every addict crashes and burns. OTOH, I have seen examples of people with addictions who lost their interest in life, so I can well beleive it could happen to you.
Can I imagine someone who loses their job/family/social life due to TV? Yes, very easily. I've seen someone who's use of TV is equivalent to that of a high-functioning alcoholic, so the possibility doesn't seem far fetched at all.
Identifying yourself as a game addict and then comparing yourself to most TV watchers, as evidence that there are no TV addicts, is a logical fallacy. How do you know that there aren't people out there like you who've gotten themselves hooked on the boob tube? What evidence do you have that games are somehow different; that game addicts are a special case, and TV addicts non-existant?
I could compare my gaming experience to a real addict and conclude that there are no gaming addicts for that matter - I'd be wrong, and I'd be commiting the same falacy that you just did.
Games are addictive. TV is addictive. Gambling is addictive. Work is addictive. Religion is too. What part of this don't you understand? You can get addicted to just about anything that pushes the right buttons, and bosses, preachers, TV producers, casino managers and game designers know how to push those buttons remarkably well. Yet I don't see anyone opening up clinics for any of the other activities in that list (exceot gambling). Only gaming is treating as though it's pathological. That is what I, and most thinking people, have a problem with.
I'm not going to suggest you are lying, but I've never met ANYONE even 2nd hand ("friend of a friend") who was obsessive about TV watching. I know lots of people that you could argue obsess about a show, or a sports league/team, but that's not the same as being what I'd call obsessive about "TV".
I've never met anyone addicted to gambling myself. Nor have I ever met a gaming addict, nor a drug addict, though I have known some potheads (however I generally wouldn't count them as "addicts").
I have, however, known one (now sober) alcoholic, and various other individuals who have addictions of one sort or another (workaholics, smokers, caffine addicts, religion addicts, etc). Consequently, it isn't hard for me to beleive that someone could be addicted to something like gambling. I don't exclude the possibility on the basis of not having any anecdotal evidence.
Why then would the fact that you've never met a TV addict give you reason to doubt their existance?
As a side note, I know one person who might be described as a TV addict, at least according to the loose criteria that we're applying to game addicts. Even if he is somewhat borderline, it's not hard for me to imagine someone who's grown even more dependant on TV to fill the void in his or her life.
There are obvious reasons why such people wouldn't be known about. For one thing, their addiction is more harmless than most (much like so-called gaming addicts, they can only really waste their own lives). TV addicts are probably stereotypical couch potatoes; single men who don't have a life outside of the boob tube.
For another, TV is considered acceptable, and we wouldn't apply the label of addict to people whose lives revolve around it. That doesn't mean however that the pattern of addiction cannot apply to TV; rather it means that we don't view that addiction as a major social issue.
Logically, if there are gaming addicts, all that shows is that people can and will use entertainment to fill a void in their life. Singling it out like it's pathological, which is what the clinic in TFA does, is uncalled for. If gaming addicts need help and intervention, then so do the TV addicts. If they don't, and it's a matter of personal choice, then trying to class their reliance on (TV/games) as a disease is wrong.
Most people hooked on, say, heroin are forced to keep taking it for more reasons than mere lack of willpower. Chemical addiction carries signifigant withdrawl side effects, some of which can be life threatening. Trust me, if you've ever known a real addict, you wouldn't just sum up their addiction as "lack of willpower".
People hooked on things that don't carry an external chemical componant, or are only very mildly chemically addictive, don't have that problem. Yes, addiction can be purely neurochemical, with nothing added to the system, but that isn't anywhere near as signifigant. People can get hooked on gaming, gambling, sex, religion, TV, violence or minimally addictive food or drugs like caffine or marjuana. Their problem is lack of willpower. Other addicts have the far more serious issue of major chemical dependancy, breaking away from which really does require a detox clinic, or support groups, or any number of other external sources of intervention.
I'm not saying that psychological addiction isn't real. It is. It's just not on par with what a serious addict has to deal with. Saying "Real addiction is all about lack of willpower" lumps cokeheads into the same category as people hooked on poker. And the people running this clinic are essentially lumping game addiction into the same category as drug addiction; this isn't fair to either the hooked gamers or the drug addicts.
Not everyone wants to play the same thing as everyone else. You may enjoy playing a character type and just be frustrated that you can never seem to win in certain situations. Also, if you do play that class you may not like it being overpowered anyway. A lot of people like to be challenged.
True. However, such arguements are rarely put forward by the people who are complaining about a given class. When someone complains about a class in an MMO, it usually means that they either feel threatened by it, or they're jealous of some aspect of it.
In this case, we have horde players complaining about paladins, and alliance players complaining about shamans. It's quite obvious that the cause is faction-based animosity; the feeling that the classes who are their "enemies" in the game are getting special treatment in some way. Were those same complainers to switch from their side to the other, they would no doubt abandon the idea that the factions are imbalanced.
I liken the "if they're overpowered just play them" argument in games to the "if it's broken just fix it yourself" argument in open source software. It's not always entirely valid.
Bear in mind, I think that the problem is imaginary. When I challenge someone to play a class they describe as overpowered, what I'm essentially telling them to do is test their opinion against firsthand experience, instead of making assumptions about balance based on observation alone.
I agree with your point however; if there were a true imbalane, then telling people to play the "overpowered" class wouldn't be a valid counterpoint.
Sometimes the developer is not the best judge of balance. Some things they just can't foresee, and believe me, players will come up with any possible way yo break or milk the system. Also, developers can have blind spots about aspects of the game, knowing it so intimately at every level. It's like how sometimes a programmer just cannot see where some code is going wrong because he understands perfectly what it should be doing, that's just how he wrote it. Someone outside the project is always a useful opinion to hear from when you can't be entirely objective.
Take a look at the WoW forums. Blizzard has been getting tonnes of advice from their players, all of it contradictory. There are as many people who think that paladins are better than shamans as there are who think the opposite. You're right about developers having blind spots and needing feedback, but lack of feedback is not the problem here. People are essentially petitioning blizzard to "nerf" the opposition.
My firsthand experience with both sides tells me that there is no serious imbalance. There are problems with the game (I left it after all), but paladin vs. shaman strength isn't one of them. The fact that there are an equal number of people arguing either side tells me that the classes are balanced.
Where did I ever say overpowered? Paladins are flat out better then Shaman for Raid PVE, if you disagree post a counterargument instead of a taunt.
To answer the second part first, it wasn't intended as a taunt. I'm just weary of hearing these arguements put forward by both sides; it gets very very old after hearing "[paladins/shamans] are better than [shamans/paladins] for the following long list of reasons" for the umpteenth time.
As for where you said that paladins are overpowered, re-read your post. You explicitly list over a dozen reasons why paladins are "better" in the context of PvE and group PvP. If you were instead arguing that shamans get the short end of the stick, then what you're saying is still "paladins are overpowered", given that those are the only classes that are faction specific.
You also didn't answer my questions. Why aren't you playing a paladin? You obviously think highly of their abilities.
Because class balance is hard.
Absolutely. I completely agree with you here.
It's almost undisputed in raiding guilds that Paladin are much more powerful then Shaman.
Have you heard from any alliance raiding guilds? They say the exact opposite.
It's undisputed on the horde side that paladins are better than shamans; it's undisputed on the alliance side that shamans are better than paladins. The grass is always greener....
How to fix this without fundementally changing either class is very hard. Blessings are just flat out better then Totems in their current incarnation and it would be hard to fix without fundemntally changing the classes.
Blizzard has had how many months to respond to these issues?
Seriously, if they thought there was an imbalance worth working on, in PvE or PvP, they'd have done something by now. Instead they're slated to simply remove the faction restrictions for these classes. That says to me that, in their opinion, the classes are balanced enough already. Plus it's simpler to give both factions equal access than it is to try and make paladins and shamans identical in the name of equality.
You know, it's funny. I was just joking with someone that we should bet on who would post a response arguing game balance first - someone who thinks shamans are overpowered or someone who thinks paladins are. It's a good thing we didn't make a real bet, or I'd have lost; I'd assumed someone with an axe to grind about shamans would respond first.
I'll ask you what I've asked others in the past: If [insert class here] is overpowered, then why don't you play one? And if you do play one, why don't you tell all the people who are conviced the class is weak how it is you play? Because obviously they don't know how.
If you're so knowledgable about WoW class balance, then how come what is obvious to you isn't obvious to the developers? Shouldn't the people who created the game (and know it better than you or I) be able to tell which class needs to be upgraded/downgraded?
There are plenty of armchair experts arguing that either side is overpowered. I really don't take any of them seriously anymore.
I actually have played both classes. And I've heard both sides. I've seen the endgame, and got thoroughly bored with it. In that time, in my entire career as a WoW player, I never once saw any evidence to support the "X is overpowered" arguement. And my observation has been that it really is a matter of the grass being greener on the other side. It's never about what your side has; it's about what the other side has that you want.
Everybody could see this coming a mile off. The alliance whines that shamans are overpowered and the horde whines that paladins are as well. There is a clear case of "the grass is always greener" going on, and it's pervasive.
The easiest way to fix this is to give each side the so-called "overpowered" class that the other side gets, thereby completely eliminating the complaints that the developers are favouring one faction over the other.
It does make the two sides even more similar, but let's be honest, they were never that different to begin with. WoW hasn't had radically different factions since it was in beta; making the faction specific classes available to both sides at this late stage won't make the slightest bit of difference in terms of faction identity.
I should clarify that I played both sides, and both classes (among others). The claim that either side is over/under powered is complete bunk. About the only concern that I see as valid is the complaint that paladins are completely boring and passive to play ("Paladins are to gameplay as porn is to sex" sums that up nicely), and that doesn't impact their performance, so it isn't a balance issue.
BTW, if any of you web hermits are listening, I truly apologize for "generalizing" and lumping you all into a group with the rest of us. I apologize for calling you a human being, but if my suspicions are correct, some of your hermit brethren have been doing a great job arguing that you guys are not in fact humans, with the same nature as the rest of us. So, since this conversation has degraded to this point, I'll just ask this question: what planet are you hermits from?
That last part of your comment is illogical. You are arguing that saying "human beings don't need physical interaction" is the same as saying "I am not human, and do not need social interaction". This is a leap to a conclusion not supported by the facts of the argument.
If someone were to argue that people don't need other people in the flesh (and I'm not sure if they're right or not), then they are not saying that they, the hermits, are in some way not human. What they're saying instead is that socializing is not a prerequisite of humanity.
Physical interaction has been the norm for all of our history. You seem to be arguing that this in turn means it's a natural need, and therefor must be fulfilled. However, "natural" is a sticky, and somewhat meaningless, idea. Tribal warfare is also a natural human instinct, yet somehow I've managed to avoid killing my neighbours with a spear (though I won't deny that the thought is temping, especially when they share their bad taste in music at three in the morning).
Can you actually show that people have an instinctive need for human company? As in, provide a solid arguement based on fact, or else link a psychological study (ideally one that's credible and scientifically sound). I'm inclined to think that the need for direct interaction is an aquired one, based partly on the variety I've seen in people's social behaviour and background. I don't have any reason to think that someone who dislikes most human contact outside of sex is unhealthy; in fact it's been my experience that the gregarious types are the ones with more problems.
And even if there is an instinctive need for physical contact, what does that mean? That hermits are unnatural? So is just about every other aspect of our lives; human nature is poorly suited to the real world. Most of our instincts were made for an environment of migrating hunter-gatherers, and half of our laws exist for the express purpose of limiting instinctive behaviour. I hardly think that just because a need is "natural" it must therefor be good. If someone is capable of meeting their need for human interaction without physical contact, then what harm is there?
Slashdot Mirror
In the US, the repubs are pushing social conservatism on religious grounds (abortion, gay marriage and the like), while the dems are pushing that same sort of social conservatism on censorship grounds ("think of the children!"). It's just a question of what you want banned, and on whose behalf.
There are no major political leaders whose platforms are based on either classical liberalism or conservatism. Those ideals have been so warped as to become unrecognizable.
Except that movie ratings are enforced voluntarily, by the theaters. It's the equivalent to Wal-mart refusing to sell M rated games to minors; it's not mandated by law.
As for fair grounds, those restrictions are for safety reasons. Short children would be at risk of personal injury if they rode attractions meant for taller participants. Essentially they're no different from rules requireing you to wear a hardhat at a construction site; it has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with avoiding loss of limb or life.
We tend to abbreviate EEE as E3. Ergo CCC turns into C3... I admit it took me a minute too. :-)
They should have either dropped the jedi angle altogether, and stuck with the rest of star wars as their setting, or they should have set the game in another era. I'd have gone with the latter - the KotOR games did that remarkably well. Plus, as an added bonus, if they'd done the game in an earlier era they could have included player-controlled sith as well, which would have been a huge selling point...
Technically, all the big bang requires is for all the matter and energy in the universe to have been compressed together at one point, and subsequently exploded outwards in all directions. The theory got started based on the observable expansion of the universe.
Who's to say that the point of focused matter and energy must be a singularity?
Probably not. From what I gathered, the two objects are both presumed, by different theories, to occur when matter is compressed past a certain point. Presumably, collapse of matter has to yield one result or the other, depending on what theory is correct. I don't see any way we could get both in the same universe.
And as these are both theoretical objects, there's no reason to assume they both exist.
I said, and I quote:
Emphasis added, since you seem to have missed it the first time.
What part of that was hard to comprehend? Seriously, you just vehemently argued against a position that I never took.
I'm being a bit glib here, so let me explain. The clinic, and the anti-gaming crowd more generally are treating game-playing habits as pathological; they are treating gaming as a disease. Now, I don't view all addicts as diseased - I drawn a distinction based on what damage the addiction causes.
People hooked on games, television, caffine, porn or work are only hurting themselves. We don't consider a workaholic to be an "addict" even though their behaviour is a classic example of psychological addiction - in fact in many circles that addiction is considered a positive trait, despite it's obviously self-destructive tendancies.
Where I, and most people, would draw the line is where the problem escalates from being wholly contained within the addict's life, and spilling over into the lives of others. Then, and only then, will I view the addiction as a societal disease. The difference between the two is much akin to the difference between a benign and malignant tumor.
Hard drugs are a blight in our society, or they can be at least. People who use them not only suffer themselves, but also spread that suffering to others. Hell, even smoking can be considered a disease in this regard; second hand smoke is a major risk factor for developing cancer. Gambling addicts are problematic, as I'm sure gambling addiction can be linked to illegal activities like theft or fraud to fund the addict's habit.
See the distinction? A caffine addict and a crack addict, as the GP pointed out, are both hooked. The reason we consider crack a problem and not coffee is because the worst thing coffee can do is ruin people's mental health and give otherwise normal sleepers insomnia; this is nothing when compared to the damage a crack addict causes.
So, does gaming addiction carry over into the lives of others like the example given of crack addiction? Of course not. In fact, from all the input from game addicts into this thread, I can only conclude that the problem is self-limiting - they all describe their addiction as having ruined their own lives, not the lives of others.
I know that sounds harsh, but my view is that people's self-destructive tendacies are their own business; it's up to the afflicted to seek help. I'm not opposed to the clinic, anymore than I'm opposed to any other venue for allowing addicts a way to cope. What I'm opposed to is the attitude that games be treated like a controlled substance.
If we are to treat games as pathological, then we must extend that treatment to all other forms of self-destructive addiction. Games are being singled out here; where is the clinic for couch potatoes whiling away their lives in front of the boob tube? Oh that's right, TV is socially acceptable and games are not...
On the contrary, I wasn't calling you a liar. I took your story at face value, and assumed it was true. However, you asked "Do most people ____ to watch TV" after telling me your story. Now, this can be taken two ways:
1. You were comparing your own life to the lives of the vast majority of TV watchers, and concluding that there are no TV addicts with problems like your own. This is the logical fallacy I refered to. To compare a minority to a majority, and conclude that the minority doesn't exist is flase logic.
TV addicts would be in the minority, much like game addicts. Asking me what I think that "most" TV watchers do (when most of them wouldn't be addicts) is what I was calling you on. I stated that "both games and TV are potentially addicting" (note the qualifier of "potential"); you can't discount that on the basis of the fact that most TV watchers aren't addicts.
2. Alternatively you could have meant that you think most gamers are also addicts. I find this hard to beleive, but if you do think this, then comparing "most" gamers to "most" TV watchers would be valid.
Since I doubt the second one, I assumed the first was what you meant. It was not your life I was reffering to when I stated you had argued a fallacy, it was that statement regarding TV watchers.
Most people who enjoy TV, games, booze or sex aren't addicts. Addicts are the exception, not the rule, except with cases like highly addictive substances (street drugs and nicotine being the two most obvious). Psychological addiction can occur with any pleasurable activity; why should games be singled out as abnormal?
Do you have any evidence at all that gaming "addicts" are a problem? Even the examples from TFA seem to indicate the problem is self-limiting. Certainly no where near the issue that drug addiction is.
The people shown as examples of gaming addicts are only hurting themselves financially and socially. They aren't dying, or commiting crimes, or selling their bodies; this is nothing remotely like crack addiction. Fundamentally, I don't see why they should be considered a problem, and couch potatoes ignored. And again, treating games like controlled or illegal substances is pure unadulterated FUD, no more, no less.
And I'm a gamer - and the description of your addiction is so far removed from my own habit (and the habits of every other gamer I've met) that you might as well be talking about a completely different activity. So I'd have to say that your addiction is unusual. And yes, I've played MMOs, and no I never knew anyone who had problems like the ones you describe. Maybe EQ was different or something, but for me and the other members of my WoW guild, none of us ever seemed to have trouble logging off for real life.
Most users of just about anything other than highly addictive drugs aren't addicts themselves. Addicts are the exception, not the rule. Do you think your example is typical of most gamers?
The aformentioned "borderline TV addict" I know doesn't have alot of attachments, other than his job. Likewise, one of the alcoholics I've known held down a teaching job for decades, and raised a family. Not every addict crashes and burns. OTOH, I have seen examples of people with addictions who lost their interest in life, so I can well beleive it could happen to you.
Can I imagine someone who loses their job/family/social life due to TV? Yes, very easily. I've seen someone who's use of TV is equivalent to that of a high-functioning alcoholic, so the possibility doesn't seem far fetched at all.
Identifying yourself as a game addict and then comparing yourself to most TV watchers, as evidence that there are no TV addicts, is a logical fallacy. How do you know that there aren't people out there like you who've gotten themselves hooked on the boob tube? What evidence do you have that games are somehow different; that game addicts are a special case, and TV addicts non-existant?
I could compare my gaming experience to a real addict and conclude that there are no gaming addicts for that matter - I'd be wrong, and I'd be commiting the same falacy that you just did.
Games are addictive. TV is addictive. Gambling is addictive. Work is addictive. Religion is too. What part of this don't you understand? You can get addicted to just about anything that pushes the right buttons, and bosses, preachers, TV producers, casino managers and game designers know how to push those buttons remarkably well. Yet I don't see anyone opening up clinics for any of the other activities in that list (exceot gambling). Only gaming is treating as though it's pathological. That is what I, and most thinking people, have a problem with.
I have, however, known one (now sober) alcoholic, and various other individuals who have addictions of one sort or another (workaholics, smokers, caffine addicts, religion addicts, etc). Consequently, it isn't hard for me to beleive that someone could be addicted to something like gambling. I don't exclude the possibility on the basis of not having any anecdotal evidence.
Why then would the fact that you've never met a TV addict give you reason to doubt their existance?
As a side note, I know one person who might be described as a TV addict, at least according to the loose criteria that we're applying to game addicts. Even if he is somewhat borderline, it's not hard for me to imagine someone who's grown even more dependant on TV to fill the void in his or her life.
There are obvious reasons why such people wouldn't be known about. For one thing, their addiction is more harmless than most (much like so-called gaming addicts, they can only really waste their own lives). TV addicts are probably stereotypical couch potatoes; single men who don't have a life outside of the boob tube.
For another, TV is considered acceptable, and we wouldn't apply the label of addict to people whose lives revolve around it. That doesn't mean however that the pattern of addiction cannot apply to TV; rather it means that we don't view that addiction as a major social issue.
Logically, if there are gaming addicts, all that shows is that people can and will use entertainment to fill a void in their life. Singling it out like it's pathological, which is what the clinic in TFA does, is uncalled for. If gaming addicts need help and intervention, then so do the TV addicts. If they don't, and it's a matter of personal choice, then trying to class their reliance on (TV/games) as a disease is wrong.
Most people hooked on, say, heroin are forced to keep taking it for more reasons than mere lack of willpower. Chemical addiction carries signifigant withdrawl side effects, some of which can be life threatening. Trust me, if you've ever known a real addict, you wouldn't just sum up their addiction as "lack of willpower".
People hooked on things that don't carry an external chemical componant, or are only very mildly chemically addictive, don't have that problem. Yes, addiction can be purely neurochemical, with nothing added to the system, but that isn't anywhere near as signifigant. People can get hooked on gaming, gambling, sex, religion, TV, violence or minimally addictive food or drugs like caffine or marjuana. Their problem is lack of willpower. Other addicts have the far more serious issue of major chemical dependancy, breaking away from which really does require a detox clinic, or support groups, or any number of other external sources of intervention.
I'm not saying that psychological addiction isn't real. It is. It's just not on par with what a serious addict has to deal with. Saying "Real addiction is all about lack of willpower" lumps cokeheads into the same category as people hooked on poker. And the people running this clinic are essentially lumping game addiction into the same category as drug addiction; this isn't fair to either the hooked gamers or the drug addicts.
Ok, bad example
Alternatively, we could revise the name of the original nuclear pulse propulsion version of Project Orion. I vote for "Project KABOOM" :-P
In this case, we have horde players complaining about paladins, and alliance players complaining about shamans. It's quite obvious that the cause is faction-based animosity; the feeling that the classes who are their "enemies" in the game are getting special treatment in some way. Were those same complainers to switch from their side to the other, they would no doubt abandon the idea that the factions are imbalanced.
Bear in mind, I think that the problem is imaginary. When I challenge someone to play a class they describe as overpowered, what I'm essentially telling them to do is test their opinion against firsthand experience, instead of making assumptions about balance based on observation alone.
I agree with your point however; if there were a true imbalane, then telling people to play the "overpowered" class wouldn't be a valid counterpoint.
Take a look at the WoW forums. Blizzard has been getting tonnes of advice from their players, all of it contradictory. There are as many people who think that paladins are better than shamans as there are who think the opposite. You're right about developers having blind spots and needing feedback, but lack of feedback is not the problem here. People are essentially petitioning blizzard to "nerf" the opposition.
My firsthand experience with both sides tells me that there is no serious imbalance. There are problems with the game (I left it after all), but paladin vs. shaman strength isn't one of them. The fact that there are an equal number of people arguing either side tells me that the classes are balanced.
As for where you said that paladins are overpowered, re-read your post. You explicitly list over a dozen reasons why paladins are "better" in the context of PvE and group PvP. If you were instead arguing that shamans get the short end of the stick, then what you're saying is still "paladins are overpowered", given that those are the only classes that are faction specific.
You also didn't answer my questions. Why aren't you playing a paladin? You obviously think highly of their abilities.
Absolutely. I completely agree with you here.
Have you heard from any alliance raiding guilds? They say the exact opposite.
It's undisputed on the horde side that paladins are better than shamans; it's undisputed on the alliance side that shamans are better than paladins. The grass is always greener....
Blizzard has had how many months to respond to these issues?
Seriously, if they thought there was an imbalance worth working on, in PvE or PvP, they'd have done something by now. Instead they're slated to simply remove the faction restrictions for these classes. That says to me that, in their opinion, the classes are balanced enough already. Plus it's simpler to give both factions equal access than it is to try and make paladins and shamans identical in the name of equality.
You know, it's funny. I was just joking with someone that we should bet on who would post a response arguing game balance first - someone who thinks shamans are overpowered or someone who thinks paladins are. It's a good thing we didn't make a real bet, or I'd have lost; I'd assumed someone with an axe to grind about shamans would respond first.
I'll ask you what I've asked others in the past: If [insert class here] is overpowered, then why don't you play one? And if you do play one, why don't you tell all the people who are conviced the class is weak how it is you play? Because obviously they don't know how.
If you're so knowledgable about WoW class balance, then how come what is obvious to you isn't obvious to the developers? Shouldn't the people who created the game (and know it better than you or I) be able to tell which class needs to be upgraded/downgraded?
There are plenty of armchair experts arguing that either side is overpowered. I really don't take any of them seriously anymore.
I actually have played both classes. And I've heard both sides. I've seen the endgame, and got thoroughly bored with it. In that time, in my entire career as a WoW player, I never once saw any evidence to support the "X is overpowered" arguement. And my observation has been that it really is a matter of the grass being greener on the other side. It's never about what your side has; it's about what the other side has that you want.
Well, blizzard finally listened.
Actually, as an ex-WoW player, I disagree.
Everybody could see this coming a mile off. The alliance whines that shamans are overpowered and the horde whines that paladins are as well. There is a clear case of "the grass is always greener" going on, and it's pervasive.
The easiest way to fix this is to give each side the so-called "overpowered" class that the other side gets, thereby completely eliminating the complaints that the developers are favouring one faction over the other.
It does make the two sides even more similar, but let's be honest, they were never that different to begin with. WoW hasn't had radically different factions since it was in beta; making the faction specific classes available to both sides at this late stage won't make the slightest bit of difference in terms of faction identity.
I should clarify that I played both sides, and both classes (among others). The claim that either side is over/under powered is complete bunk. About the only concern that I see as valid is the complaint that paladins are completely boring and passive to play ("Paladins are to gameplay as porn is to sex" sums that up nicely), and that doesn't impact their performance, so it isn't a balance issue.
If by "god" you mean "the flying spaghetti monster" (praised be his noodly appendage), then yes. Ramen, brother!
Also, the FSM won't bless Dubya as long as he refuses to wear the full pirate regalia when preaching the FSM-inspired ID theory.
No, on second thought, don't answer that. I'm not sure I want to find out.
If someone were to argue that people don't need other people in the flesh (and I'm not sure if they're right or not), then they are not saying that they, the hermits, are in some way not human. What they're saying instead is that socializing is not a prerequisite of humanity.
Physical interaction has been the norm for all of our history. You seem to be arguing that this in turn means it's a natural need, and therefor must be fulfilled. However, "natural" is a sticky, and somewhat meaningless, idea. Tribal warfare is also a natural human instinct, yet somehow I've managed to avoid killing my neighbours with a spear (though I won't deny that the thought is temping, especially when they share their bad taste in music at three in the morning).
Can you actually show that people have an instinctive need for human company? As in, provide a solid arguement based on fact, or else link a psychological study (ideally one that's credible and scientifically sound). I'm inclined to think that the need for direct interaction is an aquired one, based partly on the variety I've seen in people's social behaviour and background. I don't have any reason to think that someone who dislikes most human contact outside of sex is unhealthy; in fact it's been my experience that the gregarious types are the ones with more problems.
And even if there is an instinctive need for physical contact, what does that mean? That hermits are unnatural? So is just about every other aspect of our lives; human nature is poorly suited to the real world. Most of our instincts were made for an environment of migrating hunter-gatherers, and half of our laws exist for the express purpose of limiting instinctive behaviour. I hardly think that just because a need is "natural" it must therefor be good. If someone is capable of meeting their need for human interaction without physical contact, then what harm is there?
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!