And I totally agree. My point was not that parents should control everything their kids see, but that they can't just put the blame squarely on video games. It is the preconception of video games as a "kid's toy" that distorts many parents' view of the subject, and I am simply saying that they need to get past that.
I know of lots of parents that don't let their kids see R-rated movies. Do some of these kids still sneak into theaters to see them? Sure. Do some of these kids see them at someone else's house? Sure. But it is at least a rule that they try to employ, or educate their children about ("you aren't ready to see that yet, Timmy.")
I just think that there are plenty of parents out there who are fairly ignorant when it comes to games, and they don't employ any of these same restrictive measures. Timmy asks for GTA:SA so they buy it... and then they are appalled because they hear about it on CNN. ("But my kids play that game!!" *GASP*)
But, I suppose this same thing happens as every new medium becomes more and more mainstream, especially when it starts out targeted at kids... I'm sure "Sin City" wouldn't have gone over so well fifty years ago, when comics were considered as pure kiddie fodder.
I'm not going to reiterate the previously made counter-arguments, as I thought they were sufficient, but the real question is: how could you justify keeping analog signals around, and for how long? You seem to be implying that they should be kept around forever (what if I never want to buy a new TV?), which seems to defeat the purpose of progress.
I would understand your point if this was simply along the lines of a change in service providers... say the FCC was switching systems from A to B, both with the same quality and similar technology, but required new TVs. That would be stupid. But, that is clearly not the case. There is a clear justification for the digital switch.
What is the purpose of the Windows analogy? Much like someone could still use Windows 98 with 5 year old software if they really wanted to, someone could still use an analog tv in 20 years, with their 2005 dvd player, PS2 and VCR... but certain features may be unsupported (i.e. watching a digital broadcast... although I bet at that time you could easily buy a cheap adapter). Sure, Windows 98 is unsupported now, why should Microsoft devote any time to it, especially when their current OS's need as much support/fixes as they can get? The technology is outdated... you can't expect it to be supported forever.
Yeah, sooner or later people are just going to accept that these games exist. Just because they're video games doesn't mean they're meant for kids. A parent saying, "but my kid owns an xbox and plays these games on it!" is just as ignorant as saying "but my kid has a tv and watches [R-rated movies] on it!" People have come to grips with the fact that R-rated movies exist (duh), and that it really isn't that difficult for their kids to see them if their parents let them get away with it.
Of course, the difference here is that conservatives love to use the term "killing simulators" or whatever misleading buzz word of the moment to describe video games... they are much more evil than movies because when you're holding a plastic controller with knobs on it, it is the same as training you to kill (or solicit prostitutes)! But I digress...
Movies and video games are approaching very similar levels of audio/visual quality, so just because games have realistic sex and violence doesn't mean that they are the scapegoat for lazy parenting. It's still up to parents to make use of the ratings system and their OWN DISCRETION. It's still the parents that are paying for or buying most of the games themselves.
PaRappa the Rapper was a game for PSone that had you press button combinations in time with the beat, and it was a runaway success in Japan. Wasn't nearly as popular in the US, more of a "cult classic", I guess. The songs were pretty catchy and hilarious for their bizarre lyrics (lost in translation?).
The interview is with the artist who designed the characters.
as an addendum to my post, I should say that even when they aren't the "real" movie actors, they are still SAG. But since people were talking about whether or not it was important to hire big name actors, I guess that kind of confused the real issue, which is SAG vs. your average voice actor off the street.
Yeah, usually not... although movie licensed titles often use the real actors (i.e. Batman Begins), it is rarely the focus of their marketing or advertising, and considering lots of those games are targeted towards kids, kids probably wouldn't even notice when the real actors aren't used (i.e. Shrek 2). But, it is a nice bonus when people like Samuel L. Jackson show up in games like GTA:SA.
Hopefully that means no more main characters voiced by David Duchovny (XIII, Area 51).
Though his voice does work better than counting sheep... zzzzzzzz...
In Batman Begins, Gotham City actually looks quite like New York (city is divided with bridges connecting to various boroughs).
"Longtime Batman writer and editor Dennis O'Neil has also said figuratively that Metropolis is New York above 14th St., and that Gotham City is New York below 14th St. Within the comics themselves, however, New York, Metropolis and Gotham City all exist as separate cities."
good ol' wikipedia!
I think a lot of people are confusing the idea of a simple sex/porn videogame with the idea of an actual legitimate game trying to deal with sexuality in an interesting/appropriate/mature manner. People have pointed out that google image search is easier than trying to play a porn game, or that porn itself doesn't deal with sex appropriately anyways; but the point of the article (albeit not a particularly profound one) was that a game like GTA, an M-rated RPG, or whatever hypothetical game you could think of, could potentially deal with relationships and sexual themes in such a way that would lend to the realism, interactivity and emotional aspect of the game.
I hate to give it any credit, because the game bugs the hell out of me (try being a game tester at EA for a little while), but the Sims 2 is a good example of a game where you feel like the characters are somewhat emotionally bonded with each other, and can feel jealousy when a Sim flirts with another Sim that they were fond of, and that sort of thing. The whole thing is kind of forced, with point values for how much of a friend someone is, etc., but it gets the job done. The "sex" (making woohoo) is done in a cartoony, pg-13 kind of way, but it fits the game well and isnt just a tacked on feature. Plus, it wouldnt be a reach to remove the pixel blurring and a few tweaks to make it a little more mature-themed.
Now if you built an actual game around that, instead of an eating/shitting/sleeping simulator, I might actually go buy it. Not that the Sims isnt already the most popular game in the universe.
I'm not one to go out and buy $400 video cards... but when the latest and greatest come out, damn do I want one. For someone that can afford it, and wants to play Doom III turned up all the way at 60 fps (which looks pretty stellar as I saw at an Nvidia booth last year) on the day the game comes out, you can't really define what is "worth it" or makes them a "sucker". You're right, the value of the card steadily decreases... but that's nothing new. Sure, if someone spends $400 today on a 3dfx Voodoo2, or if they buy a Geforce 6800 because they think that its going to last them 50 years, then you're right. They're stupid as hell.
There's a lot more to it than that. To develop for a console you need to buy console debug systems (expensive), whereas to develop for PC, you need... PCs. This also requires a long process of approval and such from the console company itself, both to get a developer license and debug kits, and to finalize and submit the game as well. And then the cost of goods is way higher, to make console games and pay royalties to sony/ms/nintendo, than to make and distribute a PC game.
It's hard to generalize and say which is more "costly and complicated" for every single game but developing for a console does seem tougher.
Oregon Trail!
How that game managed to dominate the classroom scene of the 80's, from green/black Apple IIe to full-color Mac, I will never know. Maybe it's because there was nothing like the thrill of getting to shoot some buffalo during computer lab. Did anyone ever actually beat that game? I'm pretty sure my family always drowned/died of syphillis/got eaten by cannibals/however you died in that game. Maybe it was just my impatient, sadistic childhood nature because I'd always tell the horses to try and wade through the river and they usually couldn't. Stupid horses.
Re:Fuck Everything, We're Doing No Hard Drive
on
HD-Less PS3?
·
· Score: 1
It's still the same exact idea, just that the search and replace function was used more liberally (he still let a "Bic" or two slip in there). The analogy of controllers doesn't entirely fit the whole "three vs. four razor" point of the original (funny) article in the first place, but I digress...
Something fishy...
on
HD-Less PS3?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I seem to remember hearing that the PS3 is not really a gaming console. They've stripped the HD, the controller is already wireless, like a remote control... Hey, this is looking like a fancy blu-ray DVD player!
Well, at least it stands on its side. Killer.
Slashdot Mirror
And I totally agree. My point was not that parents should control everything their kids see, but that they can't just put the blame squarely on video games. It is the preconception of video games as a "kid's toy" that distorts many parents' view of the subject, and I am simply saying that they need to get past that.
I know of lots of parents that don't let their kids see R-rated movies. Do some of these kids still sneak into theaters to see them? Sure. Do some of these kids see them at someone else's house? Sure. But it is at least a rule that they try to employ, or educate their children about ("you aren't ready to see that yet, Timmy.")
I just think that there are plenty of parents out there who are fairly ignorant when it comes to games, and they don't employ any of these same restrictive measures. Timmy asks for GTA:SA so they buy it... and then they are appalled because they hear about it on CNN. ("But my kids play that game!!" *GASP*)
But, I suppose this same thing happens as every new medium becomes more and more mainstream, especially when it starts out targeted at kids... I'm sure "Sin City" wouldn't have gone over so well fifty years ago, when comics were considered as pure kiddie fodder.
I'm not going to reiterate the previously made counter-arguments, as I thought they were sufficient, but the real question is: how could you justify keeping analog signals around, and for how long? You seem to be implying that they should be kept around forever (what if I never want to buy a new TV?), which seems to defeat the purpose of progress.
I would understand your point if this was simply along the lines of a change in service providers... say the FCC was switching systems from A to B, both with the same quality and similar technology, but required new TVs. That would be stupid. But, that is clearly not the case. There is a clear justification for the digital switch.
What is the purpose of the Windows analogy? Much like someone could still use Windows 98 with 5 year old software if they really wanted to, someone could still use an analog tv in 20 years, with their 2005 dvd player, PS2 and VCR... but certain features may be unsupported (i.e. watching a digital broadcast... although I bet at that time you could easily buy a cheap adapter). Sure, Windows 98 is unsupported now, why should Microsoft devote any time to it, especially when their current OS's need as much support/fixes as they can get? The technology is outdated... you can't expect it to be supported forever.
Mod parents -1: uninformed. Yes, I thought about using that pun for a while, so what.
Yeah, sooner or later people are just going to accept that these games exist. Just because they're video games doesn't mean they're meant for kids. A parent saying, "but my kid owns an xbox and plays these games on it!" is just as ignorant as saying "but my kid has a tv and watches [R-rated movies] on it!" People have come to grips with the fact that R-rated movies exist (duh), and that it really isn't that difficult for their kids to see them if their parents let them get away with it.
Of course, the difference here is that conservatives love to use the term "killing simulators" or whatever misleading buzz word of the moment to describe video games... they are much more evil than movies because when you're holding a plastic controller with knobs on it, it is the same as training you to kill (or solicit prostitutes)! But I digress...
Movies and video games are approaching very similar levels of audio/visual quality, so just because games have realistic sex and violence doesn't mean that they are the scapegoat for lazy parenting. It's still up to parents to make use of the ratings system and their OWN DISCRETION. It's still the parents that are paying for or buying most of the games themselves.
I just wrote down a response to your post but it's secret and I'm not going to show it to you.
PaRappa the Rapper was a game for PSone that had you press button combinations in time with the beat, and it was a runaway success in Japan. Wasn't nearly as popular in the US, more of a "cult classic", I guess. The songs were pretty catchy and hilarious for their bizarre lyrics (lost in translation?). The interview is with the artist who designed the characters.
as an addendum to my post, I should say that even when they aren't the "real" movie actors, they are still SAG. But since people were talking about whether or not it was important to hire big name actors, I guess that kind of confused the real issue, which is SAG vs. your average voice actor off the street.
Yeah, usually not... although movie licensed titles often use the real actors (i.e. Batman Begins), it is rarely the focus of their marketing or advertising, and considering lots of those games are targeted towards kids, kids probably wouldn't even notice when the real actors aren't used (i.e. Shrek 2). But, it is a nice bonus when people like Samuel L. Jackson show up in games like GTA:SA.
btw, I doubt John Madden is a member of SAG.
Hopefully that means no more main characters voiced by David Duchovny (XIII, Area 51).
Though his voice does work better than counting sheep... zzzzzzzz...
In Batman Begins, Gotham City actually looks quite like New York (city is divided with bridges connecting to various boroughs). "Longtime Batman writer and editor Dennis O'Neil has also said figuratively that Metropolis is New York above 14th St., and that Gotham City is New York below 14th St. Within the comics themselves, however, New York, Metropolis and Gotham City all exist as separate cities." good ol' wikipedia!
I think a lot of people are confusing the idea of a simple sex/porn videogame with the idea of an actual legitimate game trying to deal with sexuality in an interesting/appropriate/mature manner. People have pointed out that google image search is easier than trying to play a porn game, or that porn itself doesn't deal with sex appropriately anyways; but the point of the article (albeit not a particularly profound one) was that a game like GTA, an M-rated RPG, or whatever hypothetical game you could think of, could potentially deal with relationships and sexual themes in such a way that would lend to the realism, interactivity and emotional aspect of the game.
I hate to give it any credit, because the game bugs the hell out of me (try being a game tester at EA for a little while), but the Sims 2 is a good example of a game where you feel like the characters are somewhat emotionally bonded with each other, and can feel jealousy when a Sim flirts with another Sim that they were fond of, and that sort of thing. The whole thing is kind of forced, with point values for how much of a friend someone is, etc., but it gets the job done. The "sex" (making woohoo) is done in a cartoony, pg-13 kind of way, but it fits the game well and isnt just a tacked on feature. Plus, it wouldnt be a reach to remove the pixel blurring and a few tweaks to make it a little more mature-themed.
Now if you built an actual game around that, instead of an eating/shitting/sleeping simulator, I might actually go buy it. Not that the Sims isnt already the most popular game in the universe.
I'm not one to go out and buy $400 video cards... but when the latest and greatest come out, damn do I want one. For someone that can afford it, and wants to play Doom III turned up all the way at 60 fps (which looks pretty stellar as I saw at an Nvidia booth last year) on the day the game comes out, you can't really define what is "worth it" or makes them a "sucker". You're right, the value of the card steadily decreases... but that's nothing new. Sure, if someone spends $400 today on a 3dfx Voodoo2, or if they buy a Geforce 6800 because they think that its going to last them 50 years, then you're right. They're stupid as hell.
There's a lot more to it than that. To develop for a console you need to buy console debug systems (expensive), whereas to develop for PC, you need... PCs. This also requires a long process of approval and such from the console company itself, both to get a developer license and debug kits, and to finalize and submit the game as well. And then the cost of goods is way higher, to make console games and pay royalties to sony/ms/nintendo, than to make and distribute a PC game. It's hard to generalize and say which is more "costly and complicated" for every single game but developing for a console does seem tougher.
Oregon Trail taught me as much about spelling as Grand Theft Auto taught me about knitting.
Oregon Trail!
How that game managed to dominate the classroom scene of the 80's, from green/black Apple IIe to full-color Mac, I will never know. Maybe it's because there was nothing like the thrill of getting to shoot some buffalo during computer lab. Did anyone ever actually beat that game? I'm pretty sure my family always drowned/died of syphillis/got eaten by cannibals/however you died in that game. Maybe it was just my impatient, sadistic childhood nature because I'd always tell the horses to try and wade through the river and they usually couldn't. Stupid horses.
It's still the same exact idea, just that the search and replace function was used more liberally (he still let a "Bic" or two slip in there). The analogy of controllers doesn't entirely fit the whole "three vs. four razor" point of the original (funny) article in the first place, but I digress...
I seem to remember hearing that the PS3 is not really a gaming console. They've stripped the HD, the controller is already wireless, like a remote control... Hey, this is looking like a fancy blu-ray DVD player! Well, at least it stands on its side. Killer.
impossible! you're not anonymous therefore you have zero credibility.
Comes packaged with "Halo 3: Master Chief in the Quest to Become Master Chef", and a 1080i hi-def oven timer with kick-ass visualizations.
Awesome idea, with one flaw: Do you know how many people want to meet Chewbacca?!?