This is a fairly common sentiment, often apposed by those without children, which misses the point.
Yes, parents want to be able to make sure their kids don't watch things they don't want them to see. They want to pay attention to what their kids are watching. The problem comes when there is no guaranty that any given show won't contain 'bad' things, thus they cannot make as intelligent a choice* unless they watch every single show all the way through before they show it to their children. And parents who care still don't have infinite time on their hands.
*Yes some shows can be ruled out immediately, but others could have things you wouldn't think they would.
Publishers don't get anywhere near that percentage of the sale price. This article about the economics of game development is a couple years old, but using it as reference, I would be surprised if publishers were getting more than $20 for every game sold. (And the developers are getting even less)
Not to detract from your point, because I believe it is valid, but keep in mind that remaking older technology using newer technology is not necessarily easier because our new technology is faster and 'better'.
For instance, in this story about remaking the first video game, they mention that it took 4 people 3 months to put something together that originally took one man a little over two weeks, because of the way the technology used had changed over fifty years.
Ok, I obviously realize that this is a rant, and I agree with parts of it, especially the maze complaint, but this quote:
I'd prefer him to design a game I want to play. Maybe then we won't get the millionth sequel of a game nobody wanted to play in the first place
while heartfelt, unfortunately comes off as elitist and ignorant of many of the realities of game creation.
First, if you want a game created that you want to play, you'll have to try creating it. Emphasis on try. Lots of people, including professional designers, have awesome ideas that have hundreds of tiny - and a few large - "gotchas" inherent in their designs, or due to the limitations of technology/funding. Most of these don't surface until you're already well into making the game. There's a HUGE difference between describing the game you want to play and making the game you want to play.
Second, if there's a millionth sequel, then people (not you of course) did actually want to play it in the first place, because they've bought every iteration up until this point. People whine vocally about original gameplay, but when it comes down to getting paid, highly polished versions of the-same-old-stuff are where the money usually is.
Don't get me wrong, I look for original concepts all the time, and some of them can be highly successful as well, but to say that no-one wants to play COD4, Halo 3, or even the next Pokemon title is essentially trying to assert that you are the only target market game designers should have, instead of one of many.
There's not actually 'one' design flaw in the 360, as Microsoft states on their warranty faq page (towards the bottom), but one indicator for a multitude of possible problems. - Not sure if that should make you feel better.
I'm personally waiting for my 4th 360 from Microsoft, my first one was purchased on launch day. As of today, I have not paid one cent for the repairs or shipping, the only cost to me has been time without a 360, which you can also experience in larger measure by not buying one until "it's fixed".
My experience (3 broken consoles) isn't typical of people I know who have one, but I don't regret getting one. Plus I figure I get to play games for several uninterrupted months at a time while I wait for them to "fix it", and, eventually, I'll have one of the "fixed" ones.
It's not 'legalized censorship' unless it's illegal to purchase a game with a certain rating. As far as I know, anyone over 18 can purchase an AO game with no legal repercussions. Actually, I'm not sure if a law even exists about who you can sell AO games to -- if anyone has info on this, I'd be interested.
If a private entity doesn't want to publish games with a certain rating, that has nothing to do with the rating's or the game's legality. All it means is that if you want to produce a AO game, your publishing and distribution options will be limited. They don't have to publish it just because you made it.
A better analogy would be if a major movie studio decided they were not going to distribute a porno, which I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.
Of course the analogy doesn't really match up, as the DVD players are a profitable item unto themselves, use an 'open' standard, and are made by people who don't also make movies. (And people make DVD's who don't make players)
My first thought when reading this was: "Are they going to actively filter known phishing sites?"
Looks like it's business interest they're looking out for, not individuals though.
And there's also the problem that if they do block those sites, people may just assume that any that slip through are genuine even more so than before.
...with the business model being based entirely on time and effort, you're much less likely to find someone who's willing to fund an incredibly time consuming work. Things that exist in the real world information-wise like encyclopedias, feature films, and console video games.
It would be really difficult to find someone who'd be willing to pay for the entire production costs of "Gears of War" knowing that as soon as it was done, everyone else would have it too for no money. The ability to sell multiple copies of something allows hundreds of thousands of people to pay for it.
If you rely on individual investors to create something, you'll most likely end up with a lot of special purpose, barely good enough products that just get spread around because no-one has enough money to commission a full product.
Anyway, that was my impression as I was getting an answer to a programming problem out of a handy book I bought for much less than it cost to put together.
Researchers at WeAreARealSchoolHonest University have discovered a method to unlock any combination lock within 12 attempts, the potential thief needs only to have a 24/7 video camera pointed at the lock in question....
It should be noted that this holds true for TV you watched as a child, especially cartoons. I watched an episode of Thundercats a while back, and was repulsed by, well, everything about it.
Keep your nostalgia, reminisce with your friends, but DO NOT go back and watch them again.
Since you are already rated at a 5, I'll just reply and say that I agree with you.
It seemed like they were just playing MST3K with old magazines, and criticizing the games as often as the ads. I've seen worse ads than any of the ones in the 'article'. - I don't think they went all out on this one.
Heh, I'm actually a fan of Metroid Prime, just not the beginning.:)
I think all the things it's lauded for would still be just as praiseworthy if you only started the game with basic weapons.
Hmm, I've been toying with the idea of picking up hunters, but perhaps I'll give it pass...
Just a quick reply to part of the post: The violence in movies is not, in fact, real violence. Anyone beyond a certain age knows this. However, the nudity in movies is actual nudity. And despite claims, pornography can, and does, ruin some lives.
PS: Cleanflicks does remove violence as well as nudity and language.
A lot of the cheering really does feel like movie snobs defending their right to be of a higher culture than those who would harm their movies. That, or people who rejoice whenever something that smacks of conservative christianity gets put down.
It all sounds like fair use to me. If you don't like the separate DVD included with the original, you could always get a directly edited VHS tape.
The worst, in my opinion, is a game that gives you everything to begin with, then knocks you down to near powerless after about 10 minutes. You start out with all these cool powers you don't even know what to do with yet, and then suddenly all you can do is punch.
Nothing disgusts me more then watching or reading something I know has been censored. People should be free to consume whatever media they want to, as long as it isn't hurting anybody no one should have the right to tell me what I can and can't see.
That really isn't the issue here. When people go to cleanflicks, they are actively saying "I don't want to see this". Cleanflicks' movies aren't pushed on anyone, people come to them.
Furthermore if I created a work of art I would find it supremely offensive to have some clensing squad go over it and take out the stuff that might offend people, chances are if it offends someone it was put there for that reason.
The commericals on TV are there for a reason, and many people find them irksome, should they be unskippable? Say what you will of hollywood but there are a lot of things in movies that are put there for reasons other than advancing the plot. Swear words are sometimes thrown in to make the rating higher so people will consider it a more 'mature' film, for instance.
This is with the possible exception of old works that have become offensive, but in that case they should be left as they are and taken in the context that they were created.
I'm wondering where we can draw the line between 'good offensive' and 'bad offensive'. I suppose it's mainly determined by personally held values, which will vary from person to person, and community to community.
Do you sell 'AO' games? No!? You draconian censor! Give me back my rights!
The government saying that no one can sell the game is vastly different from no one wanting to sell the game.
I think the point you are missing is that freedom of speech does not mandate that people must listen to the one speaking. Likewise, just because a game exists, it does not mean all retail stores must carry it.
You may as well villify magazines that give games bad reviews.
Here I go, waiting for the intolerant 'tolerants' to down-mod me:
WOWC is a game, not a platform. This doesn't come down to 'equal rights', it comes down to using the game as a means to push an agenda. (Yup, I said it, go ahead and reach for that troll mod - but isn't someone being sued over an in-game policy?) Blizzard doesn't have a checkbox when you are signing up that says "are you gay?". They aren't restricting people from playing if they adhere to a certain behavior pattern, it really doesn't matter to them what you do outside of the game world.
What they are trying to do IMHO is keep their game from becoming a platform for this group or that group to advertise something that is, whether you like it or not, highly controversial. It's supposed to be a game, not a soapbox.
Now, those of you who seething right now, would you be as upset if this whole thing were about religious groups?
I just went to my 'Preferences' page, and noted the fact that I can disable signatures (which are probably the main source of personal ads on this site) by simply checking a box.
Why not just add an option for those users who don't want to feel spammed by the story submitters to not show who submitted it?
Recently, I've started to notice a lot more popups while using Firefox.
I'm guessing it's always been possible to get around firefox's popup blocker, but when it only had a tiny market share, the evil marketers didn't bother with it. However, with the popularity firefox has been enjoying, it looks like they've dicided it is worth their time to try and get me to buy something by hitting me in the face with it.:(
Does anyone know a way to make the popups go away again? - I don't want to block the ad banners; if the sites can get revenue with no interaction from me, good for them. I just the annoying popups to go away.
As someone who actually works in the video game industry making the games, I think it's very safe to say that there are too many people at the show. Every time I go, I think "all these people can't work in the industry". It is way to crowded. Truthfully, I'm not really even sure why I'm there. I'm a programmer, I don't need to see all the new games and get free shirts. I guess I wear our company shirt, and that's a tiny bit of publicity for my company.
All things considered, I'm glad I got to go the first time, but it really is inefficient to have all the people with no purpose other than to 'experience E3' there.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a fairly common sentiment, often apposed by those without children, which misses the point.
Yes, parents want to be able to make sure their kids don't watch things they don't want them to see. They want to pay attention to what their kids are watching. The problem comes when there is no guaranty that any given show won't contain 'bad' things, thus they cannot make as intelligent a choice* unless they watch every single show all the way through before they show it to their children. And parents who care still don't have infinite time on their hands.
*Yes some shows can be ruled out immediately, but others could have things you wouldn't think they would.
Publishers don't get anywhere near that percentage of the sale price. This article about the economics of game development is a couple years old, but using it as reference, I would be surprised if publishers were getting more than $20 for every game sold. (And the developers are getting even less)
Not to detract from your point, because I believe it is valid, but keep in mind that remaking older technology using newer technology is not necessarily easier because our new technology is faster and 'better'. For instance, in this story about remaking the first video game, they mention that it took 4 people 3 months to put something together that originally took one man a little over two weeks, because of the way the technology used had changed over fifty years.
First, if you want a game created that you want to play, you'll have to try creating it. Emphasis on try. Lots of people, including professional designers, have awesome ideas that have hundreds of tiny - and a few large - "gotchas" inherent in their designs, or due to the limitations of technology/funding. Most of these don't surface until you're already well into making the game. There's a HUGE difference between describing the game you want to play and making the game you want to play.
Second, if there's a millionth sequel, then people (not you of course) did actually want to play it in the first place, because they've bought every iteration up until this point. People whine vocally about original gameplay, but when it comes down to getting paid, highly polished versions of the-same-old-stuff are where the money usually is.
Don't get me wrong, I look for original concepts all the time, and some of them can be highly successful as well, but to say that no-one wants to play COD4, Halo 3, or even the next Pokemon title is essentially trying to assert that you are the only target market game designers should have, instead of one of many.
There's not actually 'one' design flaw in the 360, as Microsoft states on their warranty faq page (towards the bottom), but one indicator for a multitude of possible problems. - Not sure if that should make you feel better.
I'm personally waiting for my 4th 360 from Microsoft, my first one was purchased on launch day. As of today, I have not paid one cent for the repairs or shipping, the only cost to me has been time without a 360, which you can also experience in larger measure by not buying one until "it's fixed".
My experience (3 broken consoles) isn't typical of people I know who have one, but I don't regret getting one. Plus I figure I get to play games for several uninterrupted months at a time while I wait for them to "fix it", and, eventually, I'll have one of the "fixed" ones.
If a private entity doesn't want to publish games with a certain rating, that has nothing to do with the rating's or the game's legality. All it means is that if you want to produce a AO game, your publishing and distribution options will be limited. They don't have to publish it just because you made it.
If you want to play a video game against the predecessor to Polaris (named Poki), it's the AI used by the cross-platform poker game 'Stacked'.
A better analogy would be if a major movie studio decided they were not going to distribute a porno, which I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.
Of course the analogy doesn't really match up, as the DVD players are a profitable item unto themselves, use an 'open' standard, and are made by people who don't also make movies. (And people make DVD's who don't make players)
My first thought when reading this was: "Are they going to actively filter known phishing sites?"
Looks like it's business interest they're looking out for, not individuals though.
And there's also the problem that if they do block those sites, people may just assume that any that slip through are genuine even more so than before.
...with the business model being based entirely on time and effort, you're much less likely to find someone who's willing to fund an incredibly time consuming work. Things that exist in the real world information-wise like encyclopedias, feature films, and console video games.
It would be really difficult to find someone who'd be willing to pay for the entire production costs of "Gears of War" knowing that as soon as it was done, everyone else would have it too for no money. The ability to sell multiple copies of something allows hundreds of thousands of people to pay for it.
If you rely on individual investors to create something, you'll most likely end up with a lot of special purpose, barely good enough products that just get spread around because no-one has enough money to commission a full product.
Anyway, that was my impression as I was getting an answer to a programming problem out of a handy book I bought for much less than it cost to put together.
Researchers at WeAreARealSchoolHonest University have discovered a method to unlock any combination lock within 12 attempts, the potential thief needs only to have a 24/7 video camera pointed at the lock in question....
Are movie ratings subject to government oversight?
It should be noted that this holds true for TV you watched as a child, especially cartoons. I watched an episode of Thundercats a while back, and was repulsed by, well, everything about it.
Keep your nostalgia, reminisce with your friends, but DO NOT go back and watch them again.
It's for your own good.
Since you are already rated at a 5, I'll just reply and say that I agree with you.
It seemed like they were just playing MST3K with old magazines, and criticizing the games as often as the ads. I've seen worse ads than any of the ones in the 'article'. - I don't think they went all out on this one.
Heh, I'm actually a fan of Metroid Prime, just not the beginning. :)
I think all the things it's lauded for would still be just as praiseworthy if you only started the game with basic weapons.
Hmm, I've been toying with the idea of picking up hunters, but perhaps I'll give it pass...
Just a quick reply to part of the post:
The violence in movies is not, in fact, real violence. Anyone beyond a certain age knows this. However, the nudity in movies is actual nudity. And despite claims, pornography can, and does, ruin some lives.
PS: Cleanflicks does remove violence as well as nudity and language.
A lot of the cheering really does feel like movie snobs defending their right to be of a higher culture than those who would harm their movies. That, or people who rejoice whenever something that smacks of conservative christianity gets put down.
It all sounds like fair use to me. If you don't like the separate DVD included with the original, you could always get a directly edited VHS tape.
The worst, in my opinion, is a game that gives you everything to begin with, then knocks you down to near powerless after about 10 minutes. You start out with all these cool powers you don't even know what to do with yet, and then suddenly all you can do is punch.
Ve-e-e-ry frustrating.
...and yet people still buy paitings.
Do you sell 'AO' games? No!? You draconian censor! Give me back my rights!
The government saying that no one can sell the game is vastly different from no one wanting to sell the game.
I think the point you are missing is that freedom of speech does not mandate that people must listen to the one speaking. Likewise, just because a game exists, it does not mean all retail stores must carry it.
You may as well villify magazines that give games bad reviews.
Here I go, waiting for the intolerant 'tolerants' to down-mod me:
WOWC is a game, not a platform. This doesn't come down to 'equal rights', it comes down to using the game as a means to push an agenda. (Yup, I said it, go ahead and reach for that troll mod - but isn't someone being sued over an in-game policy?) Blizzard doesn't have a checkbox when you are signing up that says "are you gay?". They aren't restricting people from playing if they adhere to a certain behavior pattern, it really doesn't matter to them what you do outside of the game world.
What they are trying to do IMHO is keep their game from becoming a platform for this group or that group to advertise something that is, whether you like it or not, highly controversial. It's supposed to be a game, not a soapbox.
Now, those of you who seething right now, would you be as upset if this whole thing were about religious groups?
Why not just add an option for those users who don't want to feel spammed by the story submitters to not show who submitted it?
I'm guessing it's always been possible to get around firefox's popup blocker, but when it only had a tiny market share, the evil marketers didn't bother with it. However, with the popularity firefox has been enjoying, it looks like they've dicided it is worth their time to try and get me to buy something by hitting me in the face with it. :(
Does anyone know a way to make the popups go away again? - I don't want to block the ad banners; if the sites can get revenue with no interaction from me, good for them. I just the annoying popups to go away.
All things considered, I'm glad I got to go the first time, but it really is inefficient to have all the people with no purpose other than to 'experience E3' there.
To whit: Greg Dean goes to E3...Um, Why?