No, I don't condone slander, libel, or shouting fire in a crowded theater, I just don't lump M rated games in that group. Of course free speech isn't absolute, but when we do restrict it, there should be a good reason. I just don't see a good reason here. As a practical matter, most stores which sell games already will not sell an M rated game to a minor. This is of course compleatly voluntary, and there will be exceptions, but if it works for movies, why not games?
Furthermore, this law specificaly was rediculous. It was going to attempt to fine the child $25? First, that seems to be the wrong end of the deal to be fining, and second, that is totaly unenforcable.
Also, not only do you and I belive that games are harmless, the studies have failed to distinguish whether violent video games cause violence, or whether violent individuals are attracted to violent video games. Given all of these facts, I don't think we need an unconstitutional, unenforcable law to protect the children of some parents against a thing which has not been shown to cause any harm whatsoever. I don't think I'm out of line in that opinion.
And to the point about sneaking things by your parents. Yes, I also tried and thought I was successful at sneaking things in at both 13 and 18. It wasn't until afterwords that I discovered that Dad actualy did have a pretty good bead on what I was doing the whole time. He just judged that none of it was dangerous, and so didn't bust me for it. But what we each did and didn't sneak past the parents is irrelivant, the point is a good parent has a pretty good idea of what kind of kid they have on their hands, and a law about how games are sold isn't likely to affect that one way or the other, thus it is unnessisary. Unessisary laws are a bad thing.
The harm, as the judge in this case sees it, is to the first ammendment. I happen to agree with him.
Sure, but I hope you aren't under the impression that kids always act in accordance with their parents' wishes, even if they have a good relationship and have been raised well.
No, I don't belive that they always act in accordance with parent's wishes. But I do belive that teenagers that have been taught right from wrong, and have a good, trusting relationship with their parent's aren't really going to be harmed by playing GTA or some such game.
The way I see it, if your 8 year old can sneek a game by you, you have bigger problems than the game, and where he got it. And if you've done your job propperly, by the time their 14 they know that drugs and violence are bad, and they're not supposed to beat hookers to death. I don't see where we need governtment intervention in this process, and less government is good government.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think even an 18 year old should really be able to put something by you. Lord knows I tried often enough when I was 18, but Dad still knew the score, even without watching me like a hawk 24/7.
When you were a kid, did your parents strip-search you before you entered the house or something? You don't think it's easy for kids to sneak stuff past their parents?
No, no stripsearches. But they did ask what I was up to when I popped a new game in the ol' Nintendo in the family room there. I know these days kids commonly have game systems in their rooms, but if you have a sneaky kid, it's gaming in the family room or not at all. This isn't rocket science.
That's only true if you don't consider the possibility that they know you would object and only play the game when you aren't present.
If the kid is smart enough to really sneak something by a parent that is actualy paying attention, chances are they are mature enough to handle the game. Really, these are young children we're talking about here, not evil genuses.
And heaven forbid you actualy build a relationship with the child you're raising, one where they know right from wrong, and don't feel the need to constantly sneak things by you.
My point is, of all the things that a parent needs to watch out for in a child's life, video games are a minor, and easily monitored one. It's really not that hard, and we really don't need the government's help with it.
The kid buys it, brings it home, and then Mom or Dad says: "What've you got there son?"
Who thinks that's a better idea than government intervention?
The taking away of a parental responsability is not the same thing as "giving parents more control". And as any good parent will tell you, you don't have to watch the kid "every second of the day" to know what they're playing. You only have to avoid compleatly ignoring them.
You are exactly right in all of your points. Jedi are simply not a class that should have been in a game set in that era. And the Jedi grind did a lot to wreck the game, as you say. However, I think that we can say, even though they shouldn't have been there in the first place, they still got the shaft.
The point is, with this game, there isn't anyone who didn't get the shaft.
I'd even go so far as to say the only place grammar is emphasised is in English class. The most common reaction of someone who has had their online grammar called into question is: "LOLZ this isnt teh sch00l nub!!!1!!one!"
The study mentioned in the blurb may show that it doesn't affect their offline grammar, but with 8 out of 10 executives at my company being compleatly unable to put together a readable email, I think online grammar should be made a priority as well.
Do you know what it took to get one of these "Elder jedi"? I was with SWG from day one, and it was too much work for me, personaly to get a Jedi. However, my roomate did get one, and I saw what it took. It was on the order of 40 hours of gameplay a week, for over a year, constant profession leveling. I think he mastered 3/4 of the professions in the game, and that was just to unlock the slot. After that he had 6 months of Jedi training out at the village.
In other words, it was enough work, and a big enough achivement, that I wouldn't begrudge them a little anger at the fact that all of a sudden everyone and their brother could just roll up a character that took them littleraly years to work up to. The vets in that game got a raw deal, and I think a little bit of bitching is not out of line.
A computer has a battery dedicated to that purpose, and your TV will draw power to monitor the IR port just like all the other devices mentioned.
The newer consoles, like the 360, will also have to power the reciver that listens for whatever wireless band the controller input comes across, since you can power on that way as well.
That video, while interesting, doesn't do anything to support the argument that Portal is a Prey ripoff.
In fact, I'd say it shows quite the oposite. Prey had to be modded to include anything resembling Portal, and it's still not the same type of game mechanic.
The idea of a portal object in a game isn't new, it predates both Prey and Portal by quite a bit. The point is that Portal cannot be properly refered to as a Prey ripoff, because it's play style and game mechanics are compleatly distinct from Prey.
The difference is signifigant enough to put the games in compleatly different catagories.
It's not as if Prey is the first game to have a portal mechanism either. This thread is full of examples to the contrary. However the common reaction is to think Portal is a Prey ripoff, mearly because Prey contains the most recent incartation of a vaugly simmilar concept. In reality, there isn't much basis for comparing the two games, and such comparisons would be of limited usefulness.
I was going to contradict you on that point, but Tycho over at Penny-Arcade is more elloquent than I, so I'll just quote him:
"I've heard the ideas it presents dismissed as ripping off Prey, and if there is a more ignorant statement to be made regarding these two games it has yet to be discovered. Prey's portals aren't user created. What's more, they're used in a completely different way: Prey is a first-person shooter, while Portal is clearly... something else."
Remodeling your kitchen is not outside of intended functionality for a kitchen-space, and also has no effect on anyone. Buying gold on WoW is very much outside intended functionality, and is detrimental to the community as a whole.
All I'm saying is that if you don't like the way WoW playes, cheating isn't the way to fix it. It's like filling the sandbox with dirt because you like making mud-forts more than sandcastles, it's really best for everyone involved if you just go play in the mud and leave the sandbox alone.
The flaw here is that you don't actualy want to play WoW, you want to play a game that you think WoW should be. You buy gold in an attempt to transform it into the game you think it should be, but the reality is that you're cheating, and WoW just isn't the game for you.
What I've learned from your posts is that you don't like questing, grinding, or raiding. You like PvP, and you think you should be able to single out just that portion of the game, and be competative at the top levels without playing the rest of the game. I can only think that this means your time would be better served playing some other game.
Now, I don't actualy belive we're the only show in town, but we don't yet have evidence to the contrary, so we have to run under the assumption that we're the only ones.
Saying there is no point to the survival of the species is tantamount to saying there is no point to life at all. One is a logical extension of the other.
This is the part that I don't get. How is it that they can be simultaneously disinterested and ultra-concerned about what their kids are doing or playing so much that they're demanding regulation? Do they suddenly have an epiphany, wake up, and realise that their pre-teen is playing a game that they disapprove of?
It's different groups doing the caring. One group is ultra-concerned that another group is dissinterested, and damnit they are going to do their best to make that group interested.
Meanwhile, the largest group, those of us in the middle who pay attention to our own kids, but are willing to let other people raise their kids however they like, have to put up with extra legislation that, while probably not actualy harmful, is unnessisary.
That is exactly right. If the race doesn't survive, then what, exactly, is the point.
To the GP:
If the human race dies out, and there is no one left to remember who we were as a species, then it will be as if we never existed in the first place. The survival of the species is an extension of the survival of yourself. It is important for the race to survive just like it's important for you to survive.
All indications were that Ghost was a pile of trash anyway, that's why it kept getting delayed and eventualy canceled. It apparently just wasn't any fun to play. That being the case, I'm glad they canceled it and are moving on.
It's not about leaving the planet compleatly in order to escape the problems that exist here. It's about having more than a single point of failure for the existance of the human race.
People will stay on Earth, and try to fix it's problems, and other people will go to various colonies and start fresh, and perhaps differently there. That way if any one spot gets whacked by a huge rock, or any other disaster you care to think of, not all of us will be killed. There will be some left somewhere to continue the species.
All fun and no work...
on
Just Let Me Play!
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's a fairly straightforward idea that a payoff with no work is not as compelling as a payoff that you've worked for. Anyone who's ever used a cheat code should know that.
If you don't have to "work" for the fun, the fun won't be as good.
Low wage does not excuse criminal behavior. It does however do nothing to discourage people who are already willing to commit criminal behavior. I think that's the point he was trying to make.
Re:Not so funny when/if the seller commits suicide
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
Clearly you are missing the point.
When I die, people close to me will be sad. Just as I will be sad if someone close to me dies. If I should happen to die in some comical fasion that random people can gleen some amusement from, I would fully expect my family to be sad, and random strangers to laugh. I don't see a problem there.
The death of a random stranger you heard about on the internet doesn't affect you one whit. You didn't know him yesterday, so what is the point in mourning a loss that you didn't experience. React to the information as you see fit. Laugh if it's funny, don't if it's not. There is no moral or ethical stand to be taken in reacting to the death of someone that has zero connection to your life. As someone above posted, people die constantly, and life goes on. When it happens to me, I won't expect the whole world to mourn me.
I played the Metroid Prime demo on the controller. It was actualy pretty natural to use it, worked well, and didn't take a lot of getting used to. I actualy had a shorter learning curve on the Wiimote than I have with other new controllers in the past. And as the previous reply stated, there is an analog stick on the nunchuck side.
Several thousand forum lurkers and Nintendo fanboys already beat Merril to the punch on this one as well. Albeit with varying degrees of research and validity. Point is: This is hardly a new prediction.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, this law specificaly was rediculous. It was going to attempt to fine the child $25? First, that seems to be the wrong end of the deal to be fining, and second, that is totaly unenforcable.
Also, not only do you and I belive that games are harmless, the studies have failed to distinguish whether violent video games cause violence, or whether violent individuals are attracted to violent video games. Given all of these facts, I don't think we need an unconstitutional, unenforcable law to protect the children of some parents against a thing which has not been shown to cause any harm whatsoever. I don't think I'm out of line in that opinion.
And to the point about sneaking things by your parents. Yes, I also tried and thought I was successful at sneaking things in at both 13 and 18. It wasn't until afterwords that I discovered that Dad actualy did have a pretty good bead on what I was doing the whole time. He just judged that none of it was dangerous, and so didn't bust me for it. But what we each did and didn't sneak past the parents is irrelivant, the point is a good parent has a pretty good idea of what kind of kid they have on their hands, and a law about how games are sold isn't likely to affect that one way or the other, thus it is unnessisary. Unessisary laws are a bad thing.
The way I see it, if your 8 year old can sneek a game by you, you have bigger problems than the game, and where he got it. And if you've done your job propperly, by the time their 14 they know that drugs and violence are bad, and they're not supposed to beat hookers to death. I don't see where we need governtment intervention in this process, and less government is good government.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think even an 18 year old should really be able to put something by you. Lord knows I tried often enough when I was 18, but Dad still knew the score, even without watching me like a hawk 24/7.
And heaven forbid you actualy build a relationship with the child you're raising, one where they know right from wrong, and don't feel the need to constantly sneak things by you.
My point is, of all the things that a parent needs to watch out for in a child's life, video games are a minor, and easily monitored one. It's really not that hard, and we really don't need the government's help with it.
Who thinks that's a better idea than government intervention?
The taking away of a parental responsability is not the same thing as "giving parents more control". And as any good parent will tell you, you don't have to watch the kid "every second of the day" to know what they're playing. You only have to avoid compleatly ignoring them.
The point is, with this game, there isn't anyone who didn't get the shaft.
The study mentioned in the blurb may show that it doesn't affect their offline grammar, but with 8 out of 10 executives at my company being compleatly unable to put together a readable email, I think online grammar should be made a priority as well.
In other words, it was enough work, and a big enough achivement, that I wouldn't begrudge them a little anger at the fact that all of a sudden everyone and their brother could just roll up a character that took them littleraly years to work up to. The vets in that game got a raw deal, and I think a little bit of bitching is not out of line.
The newer consoles, like the 360, will also have to power the reciver that listens for whatever wireless band the controller input comes across, since you can power on that way as well.
In fact, I'd say it shows quite the oposite. Prey had to be modded to include anything resembling Portal, and it's still not the same type of game mechanic.
The idea of a portal object in a game isn't new, it predates both Prey and Portal by quite a bit. The point is that Portal cannot be properly refered to as a Prey ripoff, because it's play style and game mechanics are compleatly distinct from Prey.
It's not as if Prey is the first game to have a portal mechanism either. This thread is full of examples to the contrary. However the common reaction is to think Portal is a Prey ripoff, mearly because Prey contains the most recent incartation of a vaugly simmilar concept. In reality, there isn't much basis for comparing the two games, and such comparisons would be of limited usefulness.
All of the Metal Gear Solid games can also be done without killing anyone.
All I'm saying is that if you don't like the way WoW playes, cheating isn't the way to fix it. It's like filling the sandbox with dirt because you like making mud-forts more than sandcastles, it's really best for everyone involved if you just go play in the mud and leave the sandbox alone.
What I've learned from your posts is that you don't like questing, grinding, or raiding. You like PvP, and you think you should be able to single out just that portion of the game, and be competative at the top levels without playing the rest of the game. I can only think that this means your time would be better served playing some other game.
Now, I don't actualy belive we're the only show in town, but we don't yet have evidence to the contrary, so we have to run under the assumption that we're the only ones.
Saying there is no point to the survival of the species is tantamount to saying there is no point to life at all. One is a logical extension of the other.
It's different groups doing the caring. One group is ultra-concerned that another group is dissinterested, and damnit they are going to do their best to make that group interested.
Meanwhile, the largest group, those of us in the middle who pay attention to our own kids, but are willing to let other people raise their kids however they like, have to put up with extra legislation that, while probably not actualy harmful, is unnessisary.
To the GP:
If the human race dies out, and there is no one left to remember who we were as a species, then it will be as if we never existed in the first place. The survival of the species is an extension of the survival of yourself. It is important for the race to survive just like it's important for you to survive.
All indications were that Ghost was a pile of trash anyway, that's why it kept getting delayed and eventualy canceled. It apparently just wasn't any fun to play. That being the case, I'm glad they canceled it and are moving on.
People will stay on Earth, and try to fix it's problems, and other people will go to various colonies and start fresh, and perhaps differently there. That way if any one spot gets whacked by a huge rock, or any other disaster you care to think of, not all of us will be killed. There will be some left somewhere to continue the species.
If you don't have to "work" for the fun, the fun won't be as good.
Low wage does not excuse criminal behavior. It does however do nothing to discourage people who are already willing to commit criminal behavior. I think that's the point he was trying to make.
When I die, people close to me will be sad. Just as I will be sad if someone close to me dies. If I should happen to die in some comical fasion that random people can gleen some amusement from, I would fully expect my family to be sad, and random strangers to laugh. I don't see a problem there.
The death of a random stranger you heard about on the internet doesn't affect you one whit. You didn't know him yesterday, so what is the point in mourning a loss that you didn't experience. React to the information as you see fit. Laugh if it's funny, don't if it's not. There is no moral or ethical stand to be taken in reacting to the death of someone that has zero connection to your life. As someone above posted, people die constantly, and life goes on. When it happens to me, I won't expect the whole world to mourn me.
It ranges all the way from the bible literalists, to a Creator that set the universe in motion and hasn't touched it since.
Just my experience though, YMMV.
Several thousand forum lurkers and Nintendo fanboys already beat Merril to the punch on this one as well. Albeit with varying degrees of research and validity. Point is: This is hardly a new prediction.