I disagree with the claim that "games are entertainment." Most games, though by no means all, have historically been entertainment. Some have been very serious (gambling, wargames and other simulations, gladitorial combat - entertainment for the viewers, I guess.) A game is more or less a formal category, "entertainment" (as a complement to "art", perhaps) is a recent cultural one.
And I disagree. First, even serious games are entertainment. While we could argue about the definition of entertainment, it would really just be mental masturbation to do so. The dictionary defines it as "something that amuses, pleases, or diverts". Historically games are an escape from real life, not mimicry of real life. When real life is mimicked in entertainment it is mainly to lend the entertainment credence and gravitas.
The use to which they are put can be entertainment or something quite different: in this case, something resembling drama.
But drama is entertainment!
I think our disagreement is essentially one of degrees. I simply do not believe unexaggerated real-life experiences or 'conversation' itself qualifies, in a marketable sense, as entertainment. Drama does occur in real life, but generally when it is entertaining it is either heightened, distilled, or you are a spectator to it. Normal drama is not entertaining. It is dramatic when your baby cries. But few would find that, alone, entertaining.
I agree with this, in concept. Really I do. But the fact of the matter is that games are entertainment. And if entertainment does not entertain, then you're dead from the start. I contend that interactive storytelling is not entertaining, other than to the academics who admire it in principal or the person who writes the interactive story.
Interactive stories can be fun in limited practice. For example, as a kid I loved the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. But that wasn't really an interactive story in the sense that people now mean - it was a branching story. Many games use that kind of narrative. And frankly I think that is the extent to which this concept can be entertaining.
Because at some point you have to accept that storytelling is primarily a passive experience.
The answer: I want this.
And, really, that's fine. Everyone should certainly seek out - or create - their own forms of entertainment. But where I was lost on this subject was the whole 'it will save games' angle. Games don't need saving. There are many innovative, fun games to be found in the current market - much like any other form of entertainment you have to be proactive and really search to find some of them. But they are there.
Now, if you've ever really been in serious relationships or raised a kid, you know that conflict, heroism, adventure etc can very much occure in conversations. Hell, a courtroom drama is essentially a series of conversations. So are politics. And so is a marriage on the brink of failure.
My point is, these are not entertaining subjects! Even when they occur in movies they have to be dolled up extensively to make them fun. The lawyer has to pontificate and strut around the courtroom. Revelations must occur on the witness stand. The bickering couple have to throw things at each other and scream and talk about their needs in a much more eloquent manner than you would ever find in real life.
Entertainment is life refined. It is an aspect of life that you find thrilling boiled down to its most pure form for you to experience. You seem to be arguing for a form of entertainment that more closely mirrors life, and I say that if that was fun we wouldn't need entertainment in the first place.
What this does is allow me as an experienced gamer to migrate my intuitions about gameplay to a sphere - discourse - that I usually don't consider applicable.
Really you are trading off the amount of depth you would have in a real-life discourse for the sake of having it in a simulation. I say that the simulation can never become close enough to real life to be convincing, and never depart enough to be entertaining. So why not play a game that dwells on fantasy, and have a great conversation in your real life (like this one)?
This is the first time I've seen that conflict be able to move away from the violent
Then, frankly, your exposure to video games is quite limited. Many games exist that do not revolve around violent conflict. Some don't include it at all (Tetris, Lumines, etc).
... and that's a big step for video games.
I have to disagree. Completely. 100%. Totally. You are wrong sir.
This is not a 'step forward' for video games. It is a 'step forward' for interactive storytelling, which is not a video game. People frequently confuse the two, which stymies me. They're completely different. And I have never understood why anyone wants to conflate the two, except for sheer academic flexing. How does it benefit games to take a non-interactive medium (storytelling) and make it interactive? Would discussing a Combine member's hopes and dreams over a cup of coffee make HL2 a better game? Doubtful.
You know how ever blockbuster action movie has a game to go along with it? We could potentially have games that are tied to something like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or American Beauty.
The real question is, who would want this? Nobody I can think of. Disregarding the lameness of both movies you name-check, do you really think anyone would derive any true entertainment from interactively conversing with one of the characters from this movie - beyond the sheer academic thrill of making it happen?
The enjoyment one feels from videogames comes from an established and long-understood series of basic ingredients. Conflict. Heroism. Adventure. Challenge. Triumph. These are visceral things that, frankly, cannot be obtained through a conversation - no matter how lifelike you make it.
Whenever someone crows about how 'interactive storytelling' is the wave of the future, or will 'save gaming', I just sigh and roll my eyes. Storytellers have probably been full of themselves since the beginning of time, but let's be serious. Which do you think will sell better: Halo 3 or 'My Dinner With Andre: The Game'?
Better games will save gaming. Not weak interactive dramas that play out like after-school specials.
If you can't be bothered to go and read his (long) entry on the subject where he clearly states his reasoning, why should he be bothered answering you?
Hmm. Perhaps because it's a question and answer session which the guy said he would follow up on?
First of all, it's not "outrageous sums of money" when you factor in that the time they spend doing the actual voiceover is just a small percentage of the time they spend on the work (promoting themselves, auditioning, getting contracts sorted, preparing for the role).
Actually, yes, it is an outrageous sum of money. The union was offered a 30%+ pay increase and rejected it because that wasn't enough for them. Guess cocaine has gotten more expensive.
As for the rest of your nonsensical argument: auditioning rarely happens in game voice overs; promotion is done by the agent; contracts are done by the agent and game company; preparation for the role is generally showing up in the voice recording studio on time.
You need to learn something about the subject before replying. Every single actor who has done voice work has said that it is the easiest work they have ever done. It generally takes two or three days of their time, working a couple hours a day.
But even more important is the fact that voice acting does not make or break a game and is perhaps the least important factor in game immersion. So why do they feel they deserve the most money? Because they're actors, and they expect to be treated like royalty. I say enough is enough.
the average actor makes less than the average working person
So I should subsidize their poor vocational selectivity? The average actor also WORKS MUCH LESS than the average working person. You honestly think a person should be able to afford a house, cars, and be able to sustain themselves and a family based off of one voice-over job?
Wil has no reason to defend himself to the programmers, artists, designers and writers in the industry - if those people can't be bothered to unionize or to negotiate deals individually
The problem here isn't that the union is making a request, it is that it is making an outrageous demand. Profit sharing for speaking a few lines? Profit sharing that they obviously expect to be greater than a 30% increase in base pay? That's extortion, pure and simple. If the auto workers of America or the sanitation engineers worked with this mentality - I can make one car per year, or pick up one load of garbage, and that should pay all of my bills - you'd be screaming bloody murder.
You know, Wil Wheaton and all of has slobbering fanboys love to push this "Wil's just a regular guy!" crap on us. But then you ask him to answer a question, like any other person who has posted a stupid opinion on a site like this, and out come the fanboys. Wil is too important to waste his time answering such nonsense! Wil knows what he's talking about! Since he was on Star Trek, anything he says must be true!
I call bullshit. Actors are not better people than us. What they do is less work than any other job in the world, and they get paid more for it already. But that's not good enough for them?
Let 'em strike. Nobody cares about voice acting in games. It's time to start outsourcing the acting - let these guys feel the same job insecurity we do. We don't need these self-obsessed, greedy people sucking major portions of revenue out of our pockets.
There's few things that pisses me off as much as people that complain because other people have the balls to stand up for themselves
What a wonderfully self-aggrandizing statement. Because it takes so much guts to sit in your posh house while your union extorts money from real working people.
I guess you support all those jihadists, right? After all, they're just 'standing up for themselves'.
1. It is a specific question, and I find it more than a bit arrogant that anyone would assume I would want to go to his website and sift through his blogs to have the question answered. Either answer it or don't. Don't tell me not to ask the question.
2. Your reply is completely off-topic. The question is not whether or not the money 'comes out of the pockets' of the developers. It's why does he think that actors are such special people that they deserve such outrageous sums of money just to speak into a microphone for a few hours?
Frankly I'd like to hear the man defend himself to the programmers, artists, designers, and writers in the industry. And I don't think that's unreasonable.
Well it was a long time ago, so it wouldn't have been pertinent then. But it is now:
Mr. Wheaton - how can you come down on the side of these whiny, greedy, lazy actors who want a ridiculous pay raise and profit share just for doing voice recordings for games?
In particular, how can you justify your comment to support this position - that 'voice acting doesn't pay enough to be your only job'. Do you think that a two-day job _should_ pay enough to feed you for a year, while the actual people making the game still have to scrabble every day to earn a living?
"I should point out that I'm not a pacifist, simply that many people become one because it's they can find no other way out of the cycle of violence."
But it is this very line of thought that I find offensive. Life is cyclical. All logic can be reduced to babble if it is examined closely enough. This is why I find pacifism, and other 'avoidance'-isms, to be the less honorable choice. I feel it takes more guts to dive in and try to figure out how far something should go than to throw your hands up and say 'I'm not getting involved' just because you fear what might happen.
"Now there's insurgence and rebellion against the US forces there, and they feel justified because US troops have been killing Iraq citizens."
This is a very loaded comment. Rather than drag out a whole argument about the war, I can just tell you that your statement is incorrect. First, the people 'rebelling' against the new government are not the majority, they are the minority. They are almost entirely Sunni muslims and al-Qaeda members. The Sunnis want their dictatorial power back (even though they are the ethnic minority), and al-Qaeda just wants to stir up the pot.
Saying that the terror tactics these people employ are 'the will of the people' or a 'revolution against tyranny' is simply naive and insulting. These are people who have no problems blowing up their own countrymen, taking out scores of innocent civilians. Their atrocities are well documented, from shooting up schools because they educate girls to assassinating police officers and teachers. These are crimes. They are simply painted with a romantic light by people who were against the war in an effort to justify their position - more self-serving rhetoric - similar to the way that Noam Chomsky first denied and then acted as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge-led genocide in Vietnam.
These types of crimes happen in numerous societies. Hell, in Mexico gunmen just killed the chief of police over a drug war. Nobody romanticizes that. People recognize it for what it is.
The terrorist acts in Iraq are a peoples' revolution as much as the L.A. riots were.
"This, of course, is why people decided that full-blown pacifism is the only way - because once a cycle of violence starts ever step simply escalates and becomes 'justified' by the previous atrocities."
What bothers me about this position is that it is purely self-serving. Much like the smug vegan or self-assured decrier of the death penalty, the entire position of 'pacifism' is one of putting your own moral/mental comfort above the physical well-being and reality of others.
Pacifists rarely think through their position enough to find alternatives to the actions they dislike. They simply separate themselves to absolve themselves of responsibility - to make themselves feel good. And I find that reprehensible.
It is the easiest thing in the world to be against something, or to judge it with all the knowledge of history. And it is no better to be blindly 'against' something than to be blindly 'for' it.
In general, I agree. But I'll continue to weep whenever I hear that they've executed another murderer with an IQ of 60.
Why is this? What makes them special?
Did they not commit the crime for which they were charged?
This is just another "they can be rehabilitated" argument with absolutely zero proof behind it. What would you propose to do with this mentally retarded criminal? Release them upon society? Keep them "humanely" locked up for the rest of their lives and perform experiments on them to soothe your conscience?
If you're really upset about this, I suggest next time a person with a 60-IQ who raped and killed someone is about to be executed, you welcome him into your home.
Honestly, somewhat in line with your reasoning, we should be executing people-mob leaders and corrupt politicians since they will only keep going with their misbehaviors until they attain the ultimate end of tyranny. Anyone looking at these long-term Senators in the USA can certainly say that they cannot be reformed, and that their actions are certainly responsible for enough Human deaths.
Certainly one could say that, but the obvious difference is that for the most part they operate within the law (or have the power to change the law, or the strange forgiveness of the people when they break it).
Believe me, I'd be all for giving Reagan the death penalty for Iran/Contra, Bush Sr. the death penalty for his CIA-involved crimes against humanity in places like South America, etc. The thing is people just don't seem to care. Unless, of course, the topic at hand is receiving sexual favors from an intern.
Those who understand and approve of the death penalty are far too often caricatured by the extreme left as being bloodthirsty or depraved or having some moral bankruptcy. But in actuality many of us simply understand the situation as it is, not as many wish it could be.
The situation is that we cannot rehabilitate people. Some people are rehabilitated because they want to change. Most do not. Many criminals are hard-set in criminal mentality. The death penalty is a practice to attempt to counter this: it is the statement that some crimes are so heinous that one cannot atone for them in any manner. One can never be reformed from those crimes. So for the protection of society the offender must be destroyed.
One can talk about the inhumanity of this all they want, but real life is inhumane. And frankly I would rather the bad fall more heavily on the criminal than the victim.
An example of the backwards thinking that dominates our penal system: I live in Canada, and recently a sex offender who had been convicted multiple times was released from prison simply because his sentence had run out. Nobody believed he was reformed. He had been offending for more than 40 years. Upon his release the police informed the entire community that the man was being released; that they believed he was still a danger; and that they would be keeping an eye on him.
One has to ask themselves what possible rationale could justify this approach. The entire community was put at risk so that one convicted multiple offender's 'rights' would not be infringed. Luckily for the community the offender immediately violated his parole conditions and went back to jail. But consider what could have happened. If this man had raped and/or killed someone, could anyone honestly say to their parents/children/loved ones that this was the right course of action?
Criticisms of the death penalty based upon racism, wrong convictions, etc are all quite valid and must be considered. But criticism based solely upon the idea of 'these criminals are people and have the same rights as you and I' are simply childish.
Anyone who says the criminal justice system is not at least partially in existence to provide retribution understands neither the justice system nor human nature. The justice system exists, in part, to provide the sense that justice has been done so that individuals do not take it upon themselves to do so. Retribution is a part of that. And there is nothing base about it.
There is much validity to be found in the statement "if you don't want something done to you, don't do it to anyone else". So why are so many bleeding hearts so eager to weep for the poor murderers and rapists? They knew what they were getting into.
It's the sensible, logical position. Might not make as nice a t-shirt or get you laid as quickly as the peace, love, and flowers approach. But it lets you sleep at night.
I can't believe I get to do this twice in two days!
Since this sentiment is always echoed in reverse whenever our government does something stupid like this: "Thank God I live in America, where this kind of stuff doesn't happen."
Since this sentiment is always echoed in reverse whenever our government does something stupid like this:
"Thank God I live in America, where this kind of stuff doesn't happen."
I don't know much about the headmouse, but I assume it has axis-based control and some form of button input. This seems perfect for many of the games you'll find on sites like Yahoo! games or RealArcade.
Note that this isn't an endorsement for either site - I don't know what kind of extra junk they install when you install their games, for example - but these type of games meant for the "casual gamer" usually work with minimal input, and the people who play them certainly seem to like them.
I didn't want to reply anymore, feeding trolls and all that
Sure you don't. And we all know who the troll is here.
Contrast fort with forte
A common misconception borne of ignorance. The proper word to signify strength in French is "fort", not "forte". You can ask any French-speaking person, but in the meantime from dictionary.com:
forte: French fort, from Old French, strong, from Latin fortis. See fort.
The term "forte" is a common misspelling which is used so frequently that it is documented. But it is still incorrect. Much like "ain't", which can be found in the dictionary, but still is not proper grammar.
It seems you are still mightily confused about the identities of the people posting here I never claimed in any of my posts that I like HN in specific situations; I just don't like it at all. And I don't use emacs.
You seem insistent upon carrying out this fantasy that I can't keep the posters straight, probably because you've realized your position is completely without merit. Frankly I'm no longer doubtful as to why you are posting this type of garbage: you are obviously a submoron. You cannot follow a conversation, much less offer a premise, back it with logic or reason, or discuss in a calm, even-handed manner.
Allow me to lay it out for you. When a person uses a phrase such as "you and others", that indicates that the person is not speaking only to you, not speaking directly to you, and is in fact addressing what he or she sees to be a trend in a conversation. I have given you my evaluation of the trend of this conversation: that most of the repliers (including you) are specifically against HN with little valid reason; that most of the repliers do, however, use a naming convention of some type; and that this type of argument is just a religious debate dredged up by trolls such as yourself to spew your anti-MS, anti-everyone-but-you bile.
And, just so you know, when discussing one's strengths the proper French word is "fort", not "forte".
So "ranting against naming conventions" equals "ranting against Microsoft"? I'm trying very hard to understand how you make that particular leap of logic... Could you possibly believe that Microsoft invented the concept of naming conventions
You are very obviously prevaricating. How can you claim to be "ranting against naming conventions" when you and others replying offer situations in which you would use them - and your posts are specifically against HN! Furthermore, the parent was specifically against HN!
I fail to understand why you bring this up again and again.
Because the fact that HN is singled out as the naming convention to lambast seems, to me, an obvious result of the fact that it is a standard pushed by MS.
Can we not dislike something simply because it is a bad idea?
Of course you can. But if one wants to label something a "bad idea" generally one has to provide reasons for this position, not speak in equivocal language about how they "hate HN, but see how naming conventions are sometimes useful, but HN is unpronounceable garbage, and I use Emacs..." The reasons you enumerated in your first reply simply don't hold water, and your responses since then have continued to weaken your stance.
Perhaps it would simply be a better idea for you guys to - for the 100th time - not use HN if you don't like it and leave it at that.
My point here is that arguing this kind of stuff is a waste of time - and it only pisses people off to tell them that their preference is somehow inferior to yours, or an indicator of sloppiness, or whatever.
For example, I don't use Emacs. But I recognize that some people find it better, and I work with people who use it. I'm not going to tell them that Emacs sucks and has no use just because I find it archaic and convoluted. It's their choice. I grumble a bit when I have to fix a bug at their desk, but no real harm is done.
All of these "this practice/tool/compiler/OS sucks!" arguments devolve to such a position. If it affects your work, come to some form of compromise about it. If you believe it to be objectively useless, explain why and see if others agree. Otherwise why do you care what I or anyone else use?
I gave technical reasons. You responded by arrogantly assuming I don't like it because it is from Microsoft. Did you learn that in school too?
First, your "technical reasons" used such biased language as "unpronounceable garbage". And I went through this reasons and offered my refutation of them.
I didn't actually do that. Here's something you may one day come to realize: on the message board called "slashdot" there are multiple users, each with his own ideas and agenda. Ranting against one after feeling slighted by another doesn't help at all.
The interesting point is, you are assuming that this remark was directed at you! That's is why I said "the person complaining" - to indicate that there were multiple people responding, and to specifically make a remark against the person using this tactic in his complaint.
Meaingless rant against perceived, yet utterly non-existant anti-Microsoftism: bad.
Given that the responses have all generally included situations in which the author would use a naming convention - sometimes HN itself - I think this is a perfectly valid position. Of course there is no way to prove it, but I am 100% certain that the majority of bitching and moaning we hear about HN and how "evil" it is results from the fact that people see it as a Microsoft idea, and we all now how cool it is to bag on anything from Microsoft. If Linus had proposed it, you'd have a Hungarian notation t-shirt.
Don't lecture me for pointing up the obvious bias on this site.
I realize that. My point is that statements such as this are far too general to be useful.
And, who knows, maybe he has a valid point. I'm working in Perl at the moment, so my variables, depending how you look at it, are either untyped, or have built-in HN
They have their own built-in notation, which is perfectly reasonable. In such a case HN would probably be overkill.
But my point is, as in most situations when dealing with HN one should adopt a position based on situational ethics: is it applicable to the case at hand? If so then use it. If not, don't. You know, the logic we all supposedly learned in school. It grates on me to hear people kneejerk dismiss any concept such as HN for their own political reasons. Particularly when the person complaining about it tells me that if I use it, I must be a sloppy programmer who writes buggy code.
All naming conventions, coding standards, programming templates, etc work towards a common goal: making code immediately meaningful to the reader/maintainer - lending context to locality. This in turn makes code more useful, more extensible, and easier to write. And this should be our goal - no matter what tools we use to achieve it, no matter which hated company or individual backs the concept.
Ah, thank you, you just demonstrated the fallacy of your own argument by conflating type and use
Actually, no, I've illustrated that you are completely incorrect for stating that they are always not the same, or always not related.
A really good variable name expresses what the referenced object is in context
Indeed. And what is useful about HN is that it allows you to also include the type of the variable, in relative shorthand for - pay attention here - those situations where the type of the variable might be relevant information. For many programming situations, the type of the variable is frequently relevant information. Thus, for many programming situations, HN is quite useful.
IOW, HN is a boon to programmers who write lousy, hard to read code and spend a lot of time debugging it
Wow, that certainly is a well-thought-out, even-handed, and professional comment, isn't it? Thanks for helping reinforce my statement about how your position regarding HN is an anti-Microsoft, kneejerk reaction.
I, personally, have seen both good code and bad code that uses HN. And I've even seen cases where it's actually useful and informative.
Then you've just subverted your own position that HN is useless!
I attach informational 'tags' to variable names, I put the tags at the end
... and now you're just arguing semantics. Put them in the middle, the end, the line above - whatever. Call it Ukrainian notation. The basic idea is still quite sound.
The biggest single reason I hate it, however, is tool-related
... because you use Emacs. So - here's a shocking position - don't use HN. But don't have the unmitigated gall of trying to tell me you're a better programmer because you don't.
Using HN does not mean you are a "lousy" programmer, or that you write "buggy" code or "spend a lot of time debugging it". This is just another religious argument, much like the "gcc can beat up VC", "Linux r0x0rs Windows", and "OpenGL roolz b/c it's open!" beliefs.
HN seems, for many people, to serve as a replacement for the actual name.
Translation: because some people use it poorly, it shouldn't be used.
Analogy: Then nobody should be allowed to drive.
Point: Invalid.
HN adds long strings of unpronouncable garbage throughout the source
This argument is simply ridiculous. HN descriptors are not mean to be "pronouncable", they are a compact way of expressing meaning.
Point: Invalid.
When a variable changes type, you should also rename it everywhere it is used. People tend to not do this, resulting in a system that actually gives the wrong information.
In addition to being similar to point one, this argument also applies to pretty much every other naming convention as well. So if you call your variable "PointerToThing" but change it to a reference, you still have to change the name of the variable. The only way you don't have to change your variable name when you change the type/use of the variable is if you use meaningless variable names.
Point: Invalid.
HN places a great deal of stress on variable type. In my not so humble opinion type is important, but not quite _that_ important
Problem here is that this relies upon your opinion which is certainly subjective, certainly limited, and probably doesn't apply to what other people are working on.
If variable type always didn't matter, nobody would have invented Hungarian notation.
The other arguments are exactly the same nonsense. I really wonder if you people would be so anti-HN if Linus had invented it. Just admit it - you're anti-HN because it's an idea fostered by Microsoft.
HN definitely has its uses. At the very least, the m_ notation to denote member variables is useful enough to justify its existence.
If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that.
Hate to burst your bubble - and I'm not coming from a pure anti-management angle - but "creative director" is an empty chair. It's a nothing title, generally given to people who either invested money in the company at an early stage and want to feel a part, or to your drunk brother.
As another poster pointed out, the guys credits certainly don't meet the qualifications for what one would expect from a "creative director", unless they know what a ridiculously empty title that is.
No. Dishonesty is the MOST uncivil thing someone can do
Not in the slightest, and I think we've found the source of your flowing font of delusion: your pompous assumption that everything you believe is the absolute truth - even when your statements directly contradict one another...
Here in the real world where the rest of us live, no you haven't. You did provide some quotes
... like these two statements.
none of which back you up in the slightest.
Unfortunately, since the quotes do quite obviously back my position fully, in that they speak affirmatively of the issue which I have raised, you'll have to do better than covering your ears and screaming "nononononono!" to prove your position.
Since you seem determined to drag this out by continuously replying that you are doing the proper thing by saying I'm wrong, yet offer no proof to back your position, perhaps a remedial lesson in logical argument would be beneficial for you.
Logical arguments start with propositions. A proposition is a statement which is either true or false, for example:
"Ankara is the capital of Turkey."
"Humans are the only animals to use language."
"Christopher Columbus was the first European to sail to the New World."
When we use propositions, we are either asserting the truth of the statement or denying the truth of the statement. Note that this is a technical meaning of "deny," not the everyday meaning. To deny in this context means to gather evidence to show that the proposition can not be true, not just to say that it is wrong.
Civility includes honesty. When describing your behavoir, I cannot be simultaneously honest and non-insulting.
Actually, civility does not necessarily include honesty. For example, when I see your mom I might think "I have just met the source of the demon spawn". To say that would be honest; not to say it would be civil.
If you believe that, then you are an idiot instead of a lair and are beyond help
Well, I am certainly not a "lair" - no evil henchmen or sharks with lasers on their heads.
However, all I can continue to point out is that I have offered proof for my assertions. You have not. Thus, it is very easy to tell who is making the "false statements".
As I said, Trudeau called Canada the "mouse in bed with the elephant." In addition, Global news recently ran a special about the "mood of Canada" in which it was repeatedly said that Canadians are starting to "come out of their funk" and are now feeling "proud to be Canadian". The reason given? Because the US is "no longer as respected in the world".
We are talking about a society which routinely measures itself against the US, that gets mopey and depressed and vindictive when the US does well and rejoices when the US suffers. That, my friend, is the definition of an inferiority complex.
Slashdot Mirror
And I disagree. First, even serious games are entertainment. While we could argue about the definition of entertainment, it would really just be mental masturbation to do so. The dictionary defines it as "something that amuses, pleases, or diverts". Historically games are an escape from real life, not mimicry of real life. When real life is mimicked in entertainment it is mainly to lend the entertainment credence and gravitas.
But drama is entertainment!
I think our disagreement is essentially one of degrees. I simply do not believe unexaggerated real-life experiences or 'conversation' itself qualifies, in a marketable sense, as entertainment. Drama does occur in real life, but generally when it is entertaining it is either heightened, distilled, or you are a spectator to it. Normal drama is not entertaining. It is dramatic when your baby cries. But few would find that, alone, entertaining.
I agree with this, in concept. Really I do. But the fact of the matter is that games are entertainment. And if entertainment does not entertain, then you're dead from the start. I contend that interactive storytelling is not entertaining, other than to the academics who admire it in principal or the person who writes the interactive story.
Interactive stories can be fun in limited practice. For example, as a kid I loved the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. But that wasn't really an interactive story in the sense that people now mean - it was a branching story. Many games use that kind of narrative. And frankly I think that is the extent to which this concept can be entertaining.
Because at some point you have to accept that storytelling is primarily a passive experience.
And, really, that's fine. Everyone should certainly seek out - or create - their own forms of entertainment. But where I was lost on this subject was the whole 'it will save games' angle. Games don't need saving. There are many innovative, fun games to be found in the current market - much like any other form of entertainment you have to be proactive and really search to find some of them. But they are there.
My point is, these are not entertaining subjects! Even when they occur in movies they have to be dolled up extensively to make them fun. The lawyer has to pontificate and strut around the courtroom. Revelations must occur on the witness stand. The bickering couple have to throw things at each other and scream and talk about their needs in a much more eloquent manner than you would ever find in real life.
Entertainment is life refined. It is an aspect of life that you find thrilling boiled down to its most pure form for you to experience. You seem to be arguing for a form of entertainment that more closely mirrors life, and I say that if that was fun we wouldn't need entertainment in the first place.
Really you are trading off the amount of depth you would have in a real-life discourse for the sake of having it in a simulation. I say that the simulation can never become close enough to real life to be convincing, and never depart enough to be entertaining. So why not play a game that dwells on fantasy, and have a great conversation in your real life (like this one)?
Then, frankly, your exposure to video games is quite limited. Many games exist that do not revolve around violent conflict. Some don't include it at all (Tetris, Lumines, etc).
I have to disagree. Completely. 100%. Totally. You are wrong sir.
This is not a 'step forward' for video games. It is a 'step forward' for interactive storytelling, which is not a video game. People frequently confuse the two, which stymies me. They're completely different. And I have never understood why anyone wants to conflate the two, except for sheer academic flexing. How does it benefit games to take a non-interactive medium (storytelling) and make it interactive? Would discussing a Combine member's hopes and dreams over a cup of coffee make HL2 a better game? Doubtful.
The real question is, who would want this? Nobody I can think of. Disregarding the lameness of both movies you name-check, do you really think anyone would derive any true entertainment from interactively conversing with one of the characters from this movie - beyond the sheer academic thrill of making it happen?
The enjoyment one feels from videogames comes from an established and long-understood series of basic ingredients. Conflict. Heroism. Adventure. Challenge. Triumph. These are visceral things that, frankly, cannot be obtained through a conversation - no matter how lifelike you make it.
Whenever someone crows about how 'interactive storytelling' is the wave of the future, or will 'save gaming', I just sigh and roll my eyes. Storytellers have probably been full of themselves since the beginning of time, but let's be serious. Which do you think will sell better: Halo 3 or 'My Dinner With Andre: The Game'?
Better games will save gaming. Not weak interactive dramas that play out like after-school specials.
Actually, yes, it is an outrageous sum of money. The union was offered a 30%+ pay increase and rejected it because that wasn't enough for them. Guess cocaine has gotten more expensive.
As for the rest of your nonsensical argument: auditioning rarely happens in game voice overs; promotion is done by the agent; contracts are done by the agent and game company; preparation for the role is generally showing up in the voice recording studio on time.
You need to learn something about the subject before replying. Every single actor who has done voice work has said that it is the easiest work they have ever done. It generally takes two or three days of their time, working a couple hours a day.
But even more important is the fact that voice acting does not make or break a game and is perhaps the least important factor in game immersion. So why do they feel they deserve the most money? Because they're actors, and they expect to be treated like royalty. I say enough is enough.
So I should subsidize their poor vocational selectivity? The average actor also WORKS MUCH LESS than the average working person . You honestly think a person should be able to afford a house, cars, and be able to sustain themselves and a family based off of one voice-over job? The problem here isn't that the union is making a request, it is that it is making an outrageous demand. Profit sharing for speaking a few lines? Profit sharing that they obviously expect to be greater than a 30% increase in base pay? That's extortion, pure and simple. If the auto workers of America or the sanitation engineers worked with this mentality - I can make one car per year, or pick up one load of garbage, and that should pay all of my bills - you'd be screaming bloody murder.You know, Wil Wheaton and all of has slobbering fanboys love to push this "Wil's just a regular guy!" crap on us. But then you ask him to answer a question, like any other person who has posted a stupid opinion on a site like this, and out come the fanboys. Wil is too important to waste his time answering such nonsense! Wil knows what he's talking about! Since he was on Star Trek, anything he says must be true!
I call bullshit. Actors are not better people than us. What they do is less work than any other job in the world, and they get paid more for it already. But that's not good enough for them?
Let 'em strike. Nobody cares about voice acting in games. It's time to start outsourcing the acting - let these guys feel the same job insecurity we do. We don't need these self-obsessed, greedy people sucking major portions of revenue out of our pockets.
What a wonderfully self-aggrandizing statement. Because it takes so much guts to sit in your posh house while your union extorts money from real working people.I guess you support all those jihadists, right? After all, they're just 'standing up for themselves'.
Dumbass.
1. It is a specific question, and I find it more than a bit arrogant that anyone would assume I would want to go to his website and sift through his blogs to have the question answered. Either answer it or don't. Don't tell me not to ask the question.
2. Your reply is completely off-topic. The question is not whether or not the money 'comes out of the pockets' of the developers. It's why does he think that actors are such special people that they deserve such outrageous sums of money just to speak into a microphone for a few hours?
Frankly I'd like to hear the man defend himself to the programmers, artists, designers, and writers in the industry. And I don't think that's unreasonable.
Mr. Wheaton - how can you come down on the side of these whiny, greedy, lazy actors who want a ridiculous pay raise and profit share just for doing voice recordings for games?
In particular, how can you justify your comment to support this position - that 'voice acting doesn't pay enough to be your only job'. Do you think that a two-day job _should_ pay enough to feed you for a year, while the actual people making the game still have to scrabble every day to earn a living?
"I should point out that I'm not a pacifist, simply that many people become one because it's they can find no other way out of the cycle of violence."
But it is this very line of thought that I find offensive. Life is cyclical. All logic can be reduced to babble if it is examined closely enough. This is why I find pacifism, and other 'avoidance'-isms, to be the less honorable choice. I feel it takes more guts to dive in and try to figure out how far something should go than to throw your hands up and say 'I'm not getting involved' just because you fear what might happen.
"Now there's insurgence and rebellion against the US forces there, and they feel justified because US troops have been killing Iraq citizens."
This is a very loaded comment. Rather than drag out a whole argument about the war, I can just tell you that your statement is incorrect. First, the people 'rebelling' against the new government are not the majority, they are the minority. They are almost entirely Sunni muslims and al-Qaeda members. The Sunnis want their dictatorial power back (even though they are the ethnic minority), and al-Qaeda just wants to stir up the pot.
Saying that the terror tactics these people employ are 'the will of the people' or a 'revolution against tyranny' is simply naive and insulting. These are people who have no problems blowing up their own countrymen, taking out scores of innocent civilians. Their atrocities are well documented, from shooting up schools because they educate girls to assassinating police officers and teachers. These are crimes. They are simply painted with a romantic light by people who were against the war in an effort to justify their position - more self-serving rhetoric - similar to the way that Noam Chomsky first denied and then acted as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge-led genocide in Vietnam.
These types of crimes happen in numerous societies. Hell, in Mexico gunmen just killed the chief of police over a drug war. Nobody romanticizes that. People recognize it for what it is.
The terrorist acts in Iraq are a peoples' revolution as much as the L.A. riots were.
"This, of course, is why people decided that full-blown pacifism is the only way - because once a cycle of violence starts ever step simply escalates and becomes 'justified' by the previous atrocities."
What bothers me about this position is that it is purely self-serving. Much like the smug vegan or self-assured decrier of the death penalty, the entire position of 'pacifism' is one of putting your own moral/mental comfort above the physical well-being and reality of others.
Pacifists rarely think through their position enough to find alternatives to the actions they dislike. They simply separate themselves to absolve themselves of responsibility - to make themselves feel good. And I find that reprehensible.
It is the easiest thing in the world to be against something, or to judge it with all the knowledge of history. And it is no better to be blindly 'against' something than to be blindly 'for' it.
Why is this? What makes them special?
Did they not commit the crime for which they were charged?
This is just another "they can be rehabilitated" argument with absolutely zero proof behind it. What would you propose to do with this mentally retarded criminal? Release them upon society? Keep them "humanely" locked up for the rest of their lives and perform experiments on them to soothe your conscience?
If you're really upset about this, I suggest next time a person with a 60-IQ who raped and killed someone is about to be executed, you welcome him into your home.
Certainly one could say that, but the obvious difference is that for the most part they operate within the law (or have the power to change the law, or the strange forgiveness of the people when they break it).
Believe me, I'd be all for giving Reagan the death penalty for Iran/Contra, Bush Sr. the death penalty for his CIA-involved crimes against humanity in places like South America, etc. The thing is people just don't seem to care. Unless, of course, the topic at hand is receiving sexual favors from an intern.
Yeah, there's your problem.
Those who understand and approve of the death penalty are far too often caricatured by the extreme left as being bloodthirsty or depraved or having some moral bankruptcy. But in actuality many of us simply understand the situation as it is, not as many wish it could be.
The situation is that we cannot rehabilitate people. Some people are rehabilitated because they want to change. Most do not. Many criminals are hard-set in criminal mentality. The death penalty is a practice to attempt to counter this: it is the statement that some crimes are so heinous that one cannot atone for them in any manner. One can never be reformed from those crimes. So for the protection of society the offender must be destroyed.
One can talk about the inhumanity of this all they want, but real life is inhumane. And frankly I would rather the bad fall more heavily on the criminal than the victim.
An example of the backwards thinking that dominates our penal system: I live in Canada, and recently a sex offender who had been convicted multiple times was released from prison simply because his sentence had run out. Nobody believed he was reformed. He had been offending for more than 40 years. Upon his release the police informed the entire community that the man was being released; that they believed he was still a danger; and that they would be keeping an eye on him.
One has to ask themselves what possible rationale could justify this approach. The entire community was put at risk so that one convicted multiple offender's 'rights' would not be infringed. Luckily for the community the offender immediately violated his parole conditions and went back to jail. But consider what could have happened. If this man had raped and/or killed someone, could anyone honestly say to their parents/children/loved ones that this was the right course of action?
Criticisms of the death penalty based upon racism, wrong convictions, etc are all quite valid and must be considered. But criticism based solely upon the idea of 'these criminals are people and have the same rights as you and I' are simply childish.
Anyone who says the criminal justice system is not at least partially in existence to provide retribution understands neither the justice system nor human nature. The justice system exists, in part, to provide the sense that justice has been done so that individuals do not take it upon themselves to do so. Retribution is a part of that. And there is nothing base about it.
There is much validity to be found in the statement "if you don't want something done to you, don't do it to anyone else". So why are so many bleeding hearts so eager to weep for the poor murderers and rapists? They knew what they were getting into.
It's the sensible, logical position. Might not make as nice a t-shirt or get you laid as quickly as the peace, love, and flowers approach. But it lets you sleep at night.
I can't believe I get to do this twice in two days! Since this sentiment is always echoed in reverse whenever our government does something stupid like this: "Thank God I live in America, where this kind of stuff doesn't happen."
Since this sentiment is always echoed in reverse whenever our government does something stupid like this: "Thank God I live in America, where this kind of stuff doesn't happen."
Note that this isn't an endorsement for either site - I don't know what kind of extra junk they install when you install their games, for example - but these type of games meant for the "casual gamer" usually work with minimal input, and the people who play them certainly seem to like them.
Sure you don't. And we all know who the troll is here.
Contrast fort with forte
A common misconception borne of ignorance. The proper word to signify strength in French is "fort", not "forte". You can ask any French-speaking person, but in the meantime from dictionary.com:
forte: French fort, from Old French, strong, from Latin fortis. See fort.
The term "forte" is a common misspelling which is used so frequently that it is documented. But it is still incorrect. Much like "ain't", which can be found in the dictionary, but still is not proper grammar.
I never claimed in any of my posts that I like HN in specific situations; I just don't like it at all. And I don't use emacs.
You seem insistent upon carrying out this fantasy that I can't keep the posters straight, probably because you've realized your position is completely without merit. Frankly I'm no longer doubtful as to why you are posting this type of garbage: you are obviously a submoron. You cannot follow a conversation, much less offer a premise, back it with logic or reason, or discuss in a calm, even-handed manner.
Allow me to lay it out for you. When a person uses a phrase such as "you and others", that indicates that the person is not speaking only to you, not speaking directly to you, and is in fact addressing what he or she sees to be a trend in a conversation. I have given you my evaluation of the trend of this conversation: that most of the repliers (including you) are specifically against HN with little valid reason; that most of the repliers do, however, use a naming convention of some type; and that this type of argument is just a religious debate dredged up by trolls such as yourself to spew your anti-MS, anti-everyone-but-you bile.
And, just so you know, when discussing one's strengths the proper French word is "fort", not "forte".
You are very obviously prevaricating. How can you claim to be "ranting against naming conventions" when you and others replying offer situations in which you would use them - and your posts are specifically against HN! Furthermore, the parent was specifically against HN!
I fail to understand why you bring this up again and again.
Because the fact that HN is singled out as the naming convention to lambast seems, to me, an obvious result of the fact that it is a standard pushed by MS.
Can we not dislike something simply because it is a bad idea?
Of course you can. But if one wants to label something a "bad idea" generally one has to provide reasons for this position, not speak in equivocal language about how they "hate HN, but see how naming conventions are sometimes useful, but HN is unpronounceable garbage, and I use Emacs ..." The reasons you enumerated in your first reply simply don't hold water, and your responses since then have continued to weaken your stance.
Perhaps it would simply be a better idea for you guys to - for the 100th time - not use HN if you don't like it and leave it at that.
My point here is that arguing this kind of stuff is a waste of time - and it only pisses people off to tell them that their preference is somehow inferior to yours, or an indicator of sloppiness, or whatever.
For example, I don't use Emacs. But I recognize that some people find it better, and I work with people who use it. I'm not going to tell them that Emacs sucks and has no use just because I find it archaic and convoluted. It's their choice. I grumble a bit when I have to fix a bug at their desk, but no real harm is done.
All of these "this practice/tool/compiler/OS sucks!" arguments devolve to such a position. If it affects your work, come to some form of compromise about it. If you believe it to be objectively useless, explain why and see if others agree. Otherwise why do you care what I or anyone else use?
First, your "technical reasons" used such biased language as "unpronounceable garbage". And I went through this reasons and offered my refutation of them.
I didn't actually do that. Here's something you may one day come to realize: on the message board called "slashdot" there are multiple users, each with his own ideas and agenda. Ranting against one after feeling slighted by another doesn't help at all.
The interesting point is, you are assuming that this remark was directed at you! That's is why I said "the person complaining" - to indicate that there were multiple people responding, and to specifically make a remark against the person using this tactic in his complaint.
Meaingless rant against perceived, yet utterly non-existant anti-Microsoftism: bad.
Given that the responses have all generally included situations in which the author would use a naming convention - sometimes HN itself - I think this is a perfectly valid position. Of course there is no way to prove it, but I am 100% certain that the majority of bitching and moaning we hear about HN and how "evil" it is results from the fact that people see it as a Microsoft idea, and we all now how cool it is to bag on anything from Microsoft. If Linus had proposed it, you'd have a Hungarian notation t-shirt.
Don't lecture me for pointing up the obvious bias on this site.
I realize that. My point is that statements such as this are far too general to be useful.
And, who knows, maybe he has a valid point. I'm working in Perl at the moment, so my variables, depending how you look at it, are either untyped, or have built-in HN
They have their own built-in notation, which is perfectly reasonable. In such a case HN would probably be overkill.
But my point is, as in most situations when dealing with HN one should adopt a position based on situational ethics: is it applicable to the case at hand? If so then use it. If not, don't. You know, the logic we all supposedly learned in school. It grates on me to hear people kneejerk dismiss any concept such as HN for their own political reasons. Particularly when the person complaining about it tells me that if I use it, I must be a sloppy programmer who writes buggy code.
All naming conventions, coding standards, programming templates, etc work towards a common goal: making code immediately meaningful to the reader/maintainer - lending context to locality. This in turn makes code more useful, more extensible, and easier to write. And this should be our goal - no matter what tools we use to achieve it, no matter which hated company or individual backs the concept.
Actually, no, I've illustrated that you are completely incorrect for stating that they are always not the same, or always not related.
A really good variable name expresses what the referenced object is in context
Indeed. And what is useful about HN is that it allows you to also include the type of the variable, in relative shorthand for - pay attention here - those situations where the type of the variable might be relevant information. For many programming situations, the type of the variable is frequently relevant information. Thus, for many programming situations, HN is quite useful.
IOW, HN is a boon to programmers who write lousy, hard to read code and spend a lot of time debugging it
Wow, that certainly is a well-thought-out, even-handed, and professional comment, isn't it? Thanks for helping reinforce my statement about how your position regarding HN is an anti-Microsoft, kneejerk reaction.
I, personally, have seen both good code and bad code that uses HN. And I've even seen cases where it's actually useful and informative.
Then you've just subverted your own position that HN is useless!
I attach informational 'tags' to variable names, I put the tags at the end
The biggest single reason I hate it, however, is tool-related
Using HN does not mean you are a "lousy" programmer, or that you write "buggy" code or "spend a lot of time debugging it". This is just another religious argument, much like the "gcc can beat up VC", "Linux r0x0rs Windows", and "OpenGL roolz b/c it's open!" beliefs.
HN seems, for many people, to serve as a replacement for the actual name.
Translation: because some people use it poorly, it shouldn't be used.
Analogy: Then nobody should be allowed to drive.
Point: Invalid.
HN adds long strings of unpronouncable garbage throughout the source
This argument is simply ridiculous. HN descriptors are not mean to be "pronouncable", they are a compact way of expressing meaning.
Point: Invalid.
When a variable changes type, you should also rename it everywhere it is used. People tend to not do this, resulting in a system that actually gives the wrong information.
In addition to being similar to point one, this argument also applies to pretty much every other naming convention as well. So if you call your variable "PointerToThing" but change it to a reference, you still have to change the name of the variable. The only way you don't have to change your variable name when you change the type/use of the variable is if you use meaningless variable names.
Point: Invalid.
HN places a great deal of stress on variable type. In my not so humble opinion type is important, but not quite _that_ important
Problem here is that this relies upon your opinion which is certainly subjective, certainly limited, and probably doesn't apply to what other people are working on.
If variable type always didn't matter, nobody would have invented Hungarian notation.
The other arguments are exactly the same nonsense. I really wonder if you people would be so anti-HN if Linus had invented it. Just admit it - you're anti-HN because it's an idea fostered by Microsoft.
HN definitely has its uses. At the very least, the m_ notation to denote member variables is useful enough to justify its existence.
If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that.
As another poster pointed out, the guys credits certainly don't meet the qualifications for what one would expect from a "creative director", unless they know what a ridiculously empty title that is.
Not in the slightest, and I think we've found the source of your flowing font of delusion: your pompous assumption that everything you believe is the absolute truth - even when your statements directly contradict one another ...
Here in the real world where the rest of us live, no you haven't. You did provide some quotes
none of which back you up in the slightest.
Unfortunately, since the quotes do quite obviously back my position fully, in that they speak affirmatively of the issue which I have raised, you'll have to do better than covering your ears and screaming "nononononono!" to prove your position.
Since you seem determined to drag this out by continuously replying that you are doing the proper thing by saying I'm wrong, yet offer no proof to back your position, perhaps a remedial lesson in logical argument would be beneficial for you.
Logical arguments start with propositions. A proposition is a statement which is either true or false, for example:
"Ankara is the capital of Turkey."
"Humans are the only animals to use language."
"Christopher Columbus was the first European to sail to the New World."
When we use propositions, we are either asserting the truth of the statement or denying the truth of the statement. Note that this is a technical meaning of "deny," not the everyday meaning. To deny in this context means to gather evidence to show that the proposition can not be true, not just to say that it is wrong.
Cogito, ergo sum.
Actually, civility does not necessarily include honesty. For example, when I see your mom I might think "I have just met the source of the demon spawn". To say that would be honest; not to say it would be civil.
If you believe that, then you are an idiot instead of a lair and are beyond help
Well, I am certainly not a "lair" - no evil henchmen or sharks with lasers on their heads.
However, all I can continue to point out is that I have offered proof for my assertions. You have not. Thus, it is very easy to tell who is making the "false statements".
As I said, Trudeau called Canada the "mouse in bed with the elephant." In addition, Global news recently ran a special about the "mood of Canada" in which it was repeatedly said that Canadians are starting to "come out of their funk" and are now feeling "proud to be Canadian". The reason given? Because the US is "no longer as respected in the world".
We are talking about a society which routinely measures itself against the US, that gets mopey and depressed and vindictive when the US does well and rejoices when the US suffers. That, my friend, is the definition of an inferiority complex.