Given the way people react to a multitude of other games I'd say not only would more torture in games not be effective but it would be counter-productive. Not that I expect people to go out and start torturing people, but merely that they'll end up even more desensitized than they already are. Take a look at the sort of crap kids are producing nowadays, inspired by games and other popular media, on sites like Newgrounds. And by this guy's rationale all those violent horror movies out there should have already produced the desired effect.
Violent games already provoke a reaction in people, it's just that it provokes the kind of reaction gamers don't want. Look at the attention ultra-violent games already get. People get upset and gamers end up offended, like it's no big deal. One common suggestion I see is that the critics should try these games first before passing judgment. The problem is that again, gamers have gotten so desensitized to the violence that it's no big deal to them. But put the average person in front of one of these games and they'll be completely and utterly shocked and likely agree with the calls for banning the game.
I suppose some will argue that movies are just as violent. And some are, but most people don't go into movies for the violence. And more importantly, watching a movie is a passive activity, where in a game the player is making the decision to kill, maim or torture someone. It's all fake, but that's an important distinction nonetheless.
And there's another thing I notice time and again in both movies and games as opposed to real life. In real life there's constant criticism of military action. The US is being the aggressor, for example. There's no justifiable reason for way, there's no threat to the nation, etc. Games and movies will depict the same exact scenario, however, and depict belligerence as justified and usually depicted with an aura of coolness. As long as you're a badass, it's okay to obliterate any suspected threat. And that's not even touching on games which depict actual crime.
So what is the media ultimately doing? They're glorifying all this. If people were serious about depicting the horrors of violence, for example, they'd produce a game from the perspective of the victims. And it wouldn't be a stupid revenge game either because then you're just back at square one justifying the violence.
I, for one, think there's already too much excessive violence in games. It's at a point where reviewers even criticize a game for not being graphic enough. I'm not suggesting these types of games should be censored. But I do have a problem when people think that graphic violence and/or sex are somehow essential to a mature game. Like games can't convey other mature themes and concepts.
Ultimately, I think this just reflects the lack of maturity in many games. That some guy is calling for more depictions of graphic torture and hiding behind the argument of it somehow conveying some profound meaning is ridiculous. It sounds to me like his need for violence hasn't been fully sated yet. Of course, developers are just going to keep pumping out what the market is demanding, so I doubt this is going to change any time soon, if it ever does.
It's already exhausting staring at that thing for hours, especially with Japanese RPGs which already feature a novel's worth of writing to begin with. I can only imagine how uncomfortable it will be trying to read a book with that thing.
In the very least, I think the DS needs a much higher resolution screen before they start considering anything like this.
This is nothing new or special. Well, maybe it is in the US. In Taiwan in addition to no facial expressions, people taking photos for IDs couldn't wear glasses nor could they have any facial hair. I'm sure similar rules apply in many nations.
While this may be somewhat excessive, an ID does exist for the purpose of identification, so why not try to make that identification as easy as possible?
Not everything is about the police state trying to screw you.
Having wasted my money on the game I'm surprised anyone would want to pirate the game. I waited a couple of months until I read about EA relenting somewhat on some of the restrictions.
I was aware of some of the criticisms but thought the game might be entertaining nonetheless. What a complete and utter letdown. Gameplay is excessively simplistic and bland.
What I found particularly ridiculous was the fanfare behind the game being some sort of evolution "simulator". There even was some lame cross-promotion on Discovery channel. Again, I wasn't really surprised going in, I just found the marketing to be a bit ridiculous.
If anything, given how the game essentially depicts creationism and intelligent design you'd think the creationists would adore this game.
Back onto the topic, I find this a bit concerning. The people downloading the game are convinced they're screwing the man and thus justified in what they do, but instead they're just making things worse for all PC users.
What message are they sending? The game apparently is desirable. But whereas gamers thing they're protesting the publishers are seeing this as a sign that gamers are freeloaders. They're going to assume that these people would have pirated the game with or without the DRM.
So what conclusions are they going to reach? DRM isn't strong enough, so lets make it more invasive. And that's assuming the market is deemed to exist. Because the more likely consequence of this is that they'd abandon PC development and focus on consoles as much as possible.
And to be completely honest, I feel that people pirating games are unprincipled. If a publisher has done something you're not happy with, let's say introducing draconian DRM, the solution is simple. Don't touch the damn game. That sends a much clearer message than pirating.
Some people seem so desperate to get the latest and greatest of anything that they're willing to let themselves be screwed on a regular basis, or in this cases continue insuring that we have to suffer with DRM.
Talk about sensational headlines. The headline builds up considerable excitement then the very first line of the article squashes it completely.
I don't think it's a surprise that a person can be convinced to believe pretty much anything. I have a hard time believing how this research actually reveals any new insight.
I wonder if all these cancellations are ever going to bring about an anti-MMO backlash. Every game out there seems to launch with a flood of issues, bugs, class imbalance and missing content. And to make things worse it really stinks to be stuck with a copy of a game that is completely unplayable when the servers have been shut down.
A looming threat I see to MMOs beyond WoW are the Chinese and Korean MMOs, like the one I currently see advertised on this site. They tend to all be somewhat generic, offer little more than intensive grind and don't quite have the production values of the big names. But they have two important distinctions; they offer an Asian perspective on the fantasy theme and, more importantly, they're practically free to play. To some extent, they've taken the Guild Wars model and have added micro-payments.
I think City of Heroes is a good example of what a successful MMO given the competition. They've been around for over 4 years now and they seem to have a fairly stable player base. They've got a unique theme, first of all. Additionally, instead of trying to do everything they focused on a core set of gameplay elements. I haven't played the game in a few years now, but I still think they had the most entertaining combat system of any MMO I've played, by far. It's the closest I've seen come to an action game where I feel like I'm actually engaged in the fight as opposed to just sitting there waiting for one of us to go down.
Developers need to stop trying to recreate World of Warcraft with only cosmetic differences. Secondly, they need to seriously consider whether or not it's actually worthwhile investing all that time and money into a game that will likely fail in the end. Of course they all have high hopes early in development, because of unrealistic expectations and overly ambitious goals. My hope is that we start seeing more single-player and limited multiplayer RPGs. And I'd also like to see a stronger shift away from the tired old fantasy theme.
My father is in real estate and has seen an increasing number of homes gutted of their copper, particularly those acquired by banks which have been left vacant. And they really demolish the interiors these homes trying to get at any bit of copper. You can only imagine what that does to property values, but it also has opened up the potential for great investment opportunities.
And of course, the ridiculous thing is that for all the work they put into stripping the copper they don't earn all that much for it. They'd earn more taking a job at a fast food restaurant. But I suppose if they weren't so stupid they wouldn't be committing crime anyway. It's pathetic.
I think the transition doesn't work because most of the time either the developer is trying to milk the popularity of an old game or they're trying to reproduce the gameplay of the original without properly taking into account the 3d medium. The former, of course, is almost always the case.
But there certainly have been exceptions. I think the Metroid Prime series is one. It might not have the charm of the 2D version, but it certainly is great in its own right.
I think the games that make the transition well are those that reinvent the gameplay of the original to some extent. Or in the case of Final Fantasy 3 and 4 on the DS, they've basically recreated the original. Being an RPG, however, does make the transition a lot easier.
Ultimately, it comes down to the creativity and sensibility of the developer, not the chosen medium.
I don't believe this at all. Having played a number of online games dabbled in social networking somewhat I fail to see where the real benefit is, as described in this article. There still exists that barrier of anonymity and there is no real interaction with another human being. There's no eye contact, reading body language or a general need for considering the other persons thoughts and feelings.
Want to teach children communications skills. Hold big family gatherings where adults and children are all interacting with each other. Well, one problem I've encountered with many American families is that at gatherings children are usually segregated off to their own corner, relegated to the children's table.
I've observed this with friends and within my own family, kids are interact with real people on a regular basis tend to be more outgoing and mature. The kids and teenagers I know who are into gaming and networking either seem to always be in their own worlds at these gatherings. They either run off to the bedroom and sit in front of the computer, or they're sitting in some corner tapping away on a phone.
On a side note, I've noticed this tendency where whenever research demonstrates something positive about gaming it's embraced wholeheartedly. Whenever it shows something negative it's strongly dismissed as nonsense; the tag correlationnotcausation seems to be quite popular for those stories.
I suppose you're trying to say only prudes will be offended by that link. But a pixelated penis is a penis nonetheless. I don't want to explain to my coworkers why I've got one sitting on my desktop, complete with pubes.
My personal issue with used games is that they cost only $5, at most $10, less than a new copy and what I'm getting out of the deal is questionable. Most of the time the instruction manual is missing, sometimes the package in damaged, and in some cases the CD has seen too much wear. And yet the condition of the package seems to have no bearing whatsoever on the cost of the game.
My thinking is, if the game isn't worth the money new then it's not worth buying period. Maybe I'll reconsider when the game is going for $20, which is an even better deal than getting one used. I've seen quite a few cases where discounted games were going for the same price or cheaper than used.
I've always felt that what retailers ask for used games is a blatant money grab, especially since they know that too many gamers lack the patience to wait for prices to drop.
That said, I have no problem whatsoever with the used game market. I can buy and sell used cars, furniture and electronics, why can't I do the same with games?
I love how that Wikipedia entry states, with absolutely certainty that the rising sea level is mainly a result of man-made global warming.
What I find interesting is that there is strong archeological evidence of populations thrived when the climate was warmer and the seas higher. One example being prehistoric Japan, 4000 BC to 2000 BC, when the seas were believed 5 to 6 meters higher. The indigenous population declined significantly when temperatures dropped.
These people on the Maldives would be screwed whether or not anyone wants to blame global warming. I suppose I'm being insensitive, but maybe they should have thought twice when they decided to settle land that's pretty much at sea level sitting out in the middle of the Indian ocean.
Frankly, I'm tired of this alarmist crap. I completely believe that the climate is changing, but when hasn't it been changing? This notion that humans are responsible for screwing everything about is about as arrogant, in my mind, as the belief people once had that humanity was at the center of the universe.
Frankly, I think that the expectation that Obama and the Democrats are somehow going to do things any differently from Bush and his crew is naive. And the belief that somehow Obama is inherently better for civil liberties is equally naive, if not more so.
I never could fathom the logic behind people who believe so strongly in preserving civil liberties but at the same time support the notion of a much larger government which would control our healthcare, wealth and security. How will be able to preserve our freedoms when the government knows every little thing about us, even more thoroughly than they do now.
Well, only time will tell how things turn out. I expect one of two things will happen. Obama will make a big mess of things or not much of anything at all will change. And given the absurdly high expectations of some people I think they're going to be sorely disappointed.
I will concede one thing, however. This is a historic event. Obama being elected demonstrates that racism in this country, as an institution, is dead. And anyone, regardless of background and race, can become truly successful. I hope people remember that when they start pushing for socialism.
Bush spent 8 years imposing government rules on our daily lives, taking away civil liberties, inherent human rights, and personal privacy, and has rounded out his term by buying up (e.g. nationalizing) huge swaths of the mortgage/finance/banking industries.
First of all, most republican and conservatives opposed the bailout. The politicians forced it down everyone's throat. The democrats probably supported it more enthusiastically because they're the ones getting campaign contributions from these banks. Obama was among the top of the list in contributions from Lehman Brothers among others.
Secondly, in what way, exactly, have you lost civil liberties or human rights? I see people as free to do whatever they please as they always have, if not more so.
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are stunning examples of what socialism really means.
Yep, and the UK, France, Germany and much of the rest of Europe are stunning examples of the failure of socialism. They're cutting back on social programs and privatizing where they can because they just can't sustain the system. And they've got these problems despite the fact that people are taxed heavily at all income levels.
One thing that always gets me is how people compare a nation like Denmark or Japan to the US. Those countries have relatively small and homogenous populations, unlike the US. They're in a situation where they have most of the population paying the system ensuring it's sustainable.
And even then, eventually problems arise, like in Japan, because of declining birth rates there aren't enough people paying in to support the aging population. From everything I've seen, unless we completely abandon any monetary system socialism is always doomed to failure in the long run.
Attempts at "redistribution" do not address the mythical lazy guy on the street. Those people exist, sure, but they're a relative minority.
I'll show you around some neighborhoods near where I live and tell me if it's a relative minority. I never said that these people were lazy. And my issue isn't simple that people are going out and spending money on luxuries. That's a secondary issue reflecting the real problem which is a lack of education and too much dependence on government.
Explain to me exactly how just giving a person money is going to pull them out of poverty.
Your business might not be making investments, but are you seeking investors?
No, we aren't seeking investors? Why would we be? The nature of our business doesn't require investors, and I'm guessing the majority of businesses are in the same situation.
The problem is, are you willing to pay for this?
I didn't say I was opposed to paying for this. Absolutely I'd support this if I knew the money was being spent wisely.
However, I want to see the government forced to manage its finances in the same way we're all forced to do so. Up until now the government has been operating like a pathetic welfare case who knows that next check will always be coming in.
As I've stated, the Republicans have made an absolute mess of things. They've spent at an alarming rate. The terrorist attacks and the war are a flimsy excuse for how utterly wasteful they've been. And yet they have the balls to come back now and insist that they're going to cut spending and taxes. So you won't get a disagreement from me here.
Beyond that, however, what incentive does the government currently have to cut waste? And I don't mean cutting entire programs. I mean doing careful accounting to identify waste at all levels. Buying overpriced equipment and services, eliminating inefficiencies, cutting staff that's just sitting around doing nothing, things like that. Deal with government agencies enough and the waste becomes glaringly obvious.
And to your last point, that's a huge generalization. So I'm supposed to believe that all wealthy people have gotten to that point on someone else's back? What happened to the notion of hard work?
I've got friends who through persistence and dedication are earning a comfortable living. Are you suggesting that they screwed someone to get to that point.
And are you also suggesting that somehow the poor have all found themselves in that situation by accident? It was all a matter of luck?
At the other extreme I've got friends who in high school, decided hanging out with friends and having a good time was more important than school work. Some of them managed to graduate, but just barely. Years late I've run into a couple of them working at some local retailer almost certainly barely managing more than minimum wage. I also have friends who have put themselves into serious debt because they spent way beyond their means. Was that bad luck, or poor decision making?
Granted, it's not entirely their fault. I blame the parents for not kicking them in the ass and giving enough of a shit to ensure they stay in school.
So it goes back to my point about education. The parents and children alike need to be educated on the importance of education, hard work and planning for the future. They need to be self-sufficient, not depend on the government for handouts. Wealth redistribution doesn't work.
It's as simple as that, and frankly I don't see how anyone could disagree with this.
I'll start by saying that the Republicans absolutely deserve to lose everything for the mess they've made the last 8 years. So much for the Republican revolution that brought them to power. Instead they've made an absolute mess and I see no sign of them changing things.
What I lament is the lack of viable third parties, but I'll get into that shortly.
First, I don't support Obama and here's one of the main reasons why... His constant talk about redistributing wealth and the consequences of his plans. Obama claims that he's going to cut taxes for people earning below $250,000.
First, it turns out he doesn't actually mean individuals, but actually households with dual incomes. For individuals the cutoff is speculated to be between $150,000 and $200,000.
Second, he isn't actually cutting taxes, but rather giving out a variety of rebates. This means that taxpayers have to specifically apply for these rebates, assuming they qualify. And in addition, it means people who don't even pay taxes are eligible for these rebates. Free money in addition to the welfare these people already get.
There are people who truly need financial help, specifically the mentally and physically disabled. Anyone who is able-bodied should be looking for a job if they don't currently have one. I'm all for helping these people, but handing out checks isn't the solution. When I stop seeing people driving around in SUVs with chrome rims and talking on the latest expensive mobile phones, but buying groceries with food stamps maybe I'll reconsider welfare.
I happen to live in a city most people in the surrounding suburbs wouldn't consider visiting let alone living in. So I see, first hand, the waste, and lack of education and respect.
The solution is education and exposure to the outside world. The children growing up in these poor communities need to get out. This means education programs for adults, financial aid, and opportunities for these children to get into better schools. And we need open discussion about what's afflicting these communities instead of the old immature nonsense that it's all a conspiracy to keep people down.
Additionally, how do Obama's tax increases on companies help anyone? My company has 6 full time employees, in addition to a few additional part time employees and freelancers. Assuming that each of us earned $50,000 that would mean my company needs to bring in at least $300,000 a year, just to cover salaries. Obviously, we're earning more than that. This means my company would be paying more in taxes under Obama's plan.
I qualify for Obama's rebates, but how will those help me if my company has to cut back? Will Obama's rebates make up the difference in lost salary? If the economy as a whole struggles because of these plans how will this help anyone?
Like it or not, companies create jobs. I realize it's become a fad to dump on corporations, and to a large extent they deserve all the criticism they get. But the fact is that companies make the jobs.
Obama claims he will cut capital gains tax to help small businesses. Can someone explain to me how this helps any business? My company doesn't have investments, how will this help us? And weren't the democrats outraged when Bush helped cut capital gains tax. At the time weren't they decrying that capital gains tax cuts only helped wealthy investors?
What frustrates me is to see what other countries are doing to stimulate their economies while the US seems to be headed in the opposite direction. It's a fact that American companies already pay among the highest corporate tax in the world. Ireland has thrived because of their considerable tax cuts. Last year Taiwan cut corporate tax to help ensure strong economic growth.
Just recently South Korea not only cut corporate taxes but they instituted a program where new small companies only paid half the taxes normally due in the first four years of business. They're serious about growing their economies, Obama seems more concerned about buying votes.
I've found that the various GSM phones I've had have caused different amounts of noise, I assume based on the strength of the transmitter. With my old phone I sometimes heard it faintly on my car's speakers. And if you've had one of these phones around a CRT the screen gets distorted as well.
One cool, somewhat unrelated, thing I used to sometimes hear over my computer speakers growing up was a passing truck driver talking on his CB. The guy's voice was quite distinct. The interesting thing was how susceptible PC speakers were, because I don't recall my father's stereo speakers ever picking it up. I can only assume it's because more power was required to drive those speakers.
Apple products seem to have this tendency to make people notice things that apparently they were oblivious to previously.
If you don't like DRM you shouldn't touch the game, period. That sends a stronger message than acquiring the game illegally. Otherwise you're just justifying to these companies the need for DRM.
And to make things worse, you make it seem like you'll download the game illegally even if the game has no DRM.
I meant exactly what I said. American imperialism is the excuse used for the resistance. But what's bringing about social change in the Middle East is the influence of foreign cultures, foreign from the perspective of people in the region.
The obvious sources are the internet, entertainment and consumer products in general. Given how widespread European presence is in the region, I'm not surprised if they're influenced most by European culture.
I'm convinced that this sort of thing is a last gasp amongst the extremists to hold onto the old ways. The fact is that the world is changing and nobody can stop it. The Middle East is being exposed to the outside world via the internet and other media. The religious hardliners are realizing that they're losing their hold on the people and I suppose like most people they don't like change.
I realize American imperialism is brought up as the reason for this violence. But I'm convinced that's bullshit. The widespread dissemination of foreign cultures is the more real and subtle threat.
I think it's similar to certain Christian groups in this country coming out trying to denounce evolution and force creationism on people. Deep down they realize their religion is being marginalized and are grasping at straws trying to make it relevant.
The problem is that they're confusing a crumbling power structure for faith when the two aren't connected. There's no reason whatsoever why a person can't be devoutly religious and still accept science and progress.
The key difference, however, is that Muslim extremists are more likely to blow things up to get their way, or at least threaten to do so. Sure, you get the occasional Christian nut who tries to shoot an abortion doctor or something, but that's the extent of it. But Christians consistently denounce the act. On the other hand, at best Muslims won't say anything at all and at worst will run into the streets in celebration.
But ultimately these small victories are insignificant in the long run. And having heard some guys complaining about how Middle Eastern is growing increasingly liberal the days of religious extremism are numbered.
Political correctness has crippled America. By no means am I endorsing bigotry and racism, but we should be able to have open discourse about issues without it devolving into claims of racism.
The percentage of the Muslim population in the US is.6% to 1%. The last time I checked we still had free speech and the presence of this passage in a game is not intentionally offensive from what I can tell.
When Andres Serrano dumped a crucifix in urine and photographed it he wasn't banned from displaying his work. Hell, a nun actually stated in an interview that the work was not blasphemous but rather an example of what people have done to Christ.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the way people react to a multitude of other games I'd say not only would more torture in games not be effective but it would be counter-productive. Not that I expect people to go out and start torturing people, but merely that they'll end up even more desensitized than they already are. Take a look at the sort of crap kids are producing nowadays, inspired by games and other popular media, on sites like Newgrounds. And by this guy's rationale all those violent horror movies out there should have already produced the desired effect.
Violent games already provoke a reaction in people, it's just that it provokes the kind of reaction gamers don't want. Look at the attention ultra-violent games already get. People get upset and gamers end up offended, like it's no big deal. One common suggestion I see is that the critics should try these games first before passing judgment. The problem is that again, gamers have gotten so desensitized to the violence that it's no big deal to them. But put the average person in front of one of these games and they'll be completely and utterly shocked and likely agree with the calls for banning the game.
I suppose some will argue that movies are just as violent. And some are, but most people don't go into movies for the violence. And more importantly, watching a movie is a passive activity, where in a game the player is making the decision to kill, maim or torture someone. It's all fake, but that's an important distinction nonetheless.
And there's another thing I notice time and again in both movies and games as opposed to real life. In real life there's constant criticism of military action. The US is being the aggressor, for example. There's no justifiable reason for way, there's no threat to the nation, etc. Games and movies will depict the same exact scenario, however, and depict belligerence as justified and usually depicted with an aura of coolness. As long as you're a badass, it's okay to obliterate any suspected threat. And that's not even touching on games which depict actual crime.
So what is the media ultimately doing? They're glorifying all this. If people were serious about depicting the horrors of violence, for example, they'd produce a game from the perspective of the victims. And it wouldn't be a stupid revenge game either because then you're just back at square one justifying the violence.
I, for one, think there's already too much excessive violence in games. It's at a point where reviewers even criticize a game for not being graphic enough. I'm not suggesting these types of games should be censored. But I do have a problem when people think that graphic violence and/or sex are somehow essential to a mature game. Like games can't convey other mature themes and concepts.
Ultimately, I think this just reflects the lack of maturity in many games. That some guy is calling for more depictions of graphic torture and hiding behind the argument of it somehow conveying some profound meaning is ridiculous. It sounds to me like his need for violence hasn't been fully sated yet. Of course, developers are just going to keep pumping out what the market is demanding, so I doubt this is going to change any time soon, if it ever does.
Actually, I've found Pikmin to be quite boring. And I don't see it as a strategy game so much as a puzzle game along the lines of Lemmings.
I fail to see where it provides such a dramatic level of innovation over other RTS games.
You might not have a problem with it, but many others may. Especially in the overly-sensitive corporate world.
It's already exhausting staring at that thing for hours, especially with Japanese RPGs which already feature a novel's worth of writing to begin with. I can only imagine how uncomfortable it will be trying to read a book with that thing.
In the very least, I think the DS needs a much higher resolution screen before they start considering anything like this.
This is nothing new or special. Well, maybe it is in the US. In Taiwan in addition to no facial expressions, people taking photos for IDs couldn't wear glasses nor could they have any facial hair. I'm sure similar rules apply in many nations.
While this may be somewhat excessive, an ID does exist for the purpose of identification, so why not try to make that identification as easy as possible?
Not everything is about the police state trying to screw you.
Having wasted my money on the game I'm surprised anyone would want to pirate the game. I waited a couple of months until I read about EA relenting somewhat on some of the restrictions.
I was aware of some of the criticisms but thought the game might be entertaining nonetheless. What a complete and utter letdown. Gameplay is excessively simplistic and bland.
What I found particularly ridiculous was the fanfare behind the game being some sort of evolution "simulator". There even was some lame cross-promotion on Discovery channel. Again, I wasn't really surprised going in, I just found the marketing to be a bit ridiculous.
If anything, given how the game essentially depicts creationism and intelligent design you'd think the creationists would adore this game.
Back onto the topic, I find this a bit concerning. The people downloading the game are convinced they're screwing the man and thus justified in what they do, but instead they're just making things worse for all PC users.
What message are they sending? The game apparently is desirable. But whereas gamers thing they're protesting the publishers are seeing this as a sign that gamers are freeloaders. They're going to assume that these people would have pirated the game with or without the DRM.
So what conclusions are they going to reach? DRM isn't strong enough, so lets make it more invasive. And that's assuming the market is deemed to exist. Because the more likely consequence of this is that they'd abandon PC development and focus on consoles as much as possible.
And to be completely honest, I feel that people pirating games are unprincipled. If a publisher has done something you're not happy with, let's say introducing draconian DRM, the solution is simple. Don't touch the damn game. That sends a much clearer message than pirating.
Some people seem so desperate to get the latest and greatest of anything that they're willing to let themselves be screwed on a regular basis, or in this cases continue insuring that we have to suffer with DRM.
Talk about sensational headlines. The headline builds up considerable excitement then the very first line of the article squashes it completely.
I don't think it's a surprise that a person can be convinced to believe pretty much anything. I have a hard time believing how this research actually reveals any new insight.
I wonder if all these cancellations are ever going to bring about an anti-MMO backlash. Every game out there seems to launch with a flood of issues, bugs, class imbalance and missing content. And to make things worse it really stinks to be stuck with a copy of a game that is completely unplayable when the servers have been shut down.
A looming threat I see to MMOs beyond WoW are the Chinese and Korean MMOs, like the one I currently see advertised on this site. They tend to all be somewhat generic, offer little more than intensive grind and don't quite have the production values of the big names. But they have two important distinctions; they offer an Asian perspective on the fantasy theme and, more importantly, they're practically free to play. To some extent, they've taken the Guild Wars model and have added micro-payments.
I think City of Heroes is a good example of what a successful MMO given the competition. They've been around for over 4 years now and they seem to have a fairly stable player base. They've got a unique theme, first of all. Additionally, instead of trying to do everything they focused on a core set of gameplay elements. I haven't played the game in a few years now, but I still think they had the most entertaining combat system of any MMO I've played, by far. It's the closest I've seen come to an action game where I feel like I'm actually engaged in the fight as opposed to just sitting there waiting for one of us to go down.
Developers need to stop trying to recreate World of Warcraft with only cosmetic differences. Secondly, they need to seriously consider whether or not it's actually worthwhile investing all that time and money into a game that will likely fail in the end. Of course they all have high hopes early in development, because of unrealistic expectations and overly ambitious goals. My hope is that we start seeing more single-player and limited multiplayer RPGs. And I'd also like to see a stronger shift away from the tired old fantasy theme.
My father is in real estate and has seen an increasing number of homes gutted of their copper, particularly those acquired by banks which have been left vacant. And they really demolish the interiors these homes trying to get at any bit of copper. You can only imagine what that does to property values, but it also has opened up the potential for great investment opportunities.
And of course, the ridiculous thing is that for all the work they put into stripping the copper they don't earn all that much for it. They'd earn more taking a job at a fast food restaurant. But I suppose if they weren't so stupid they wouldn't be committing crime anyway. It's pathetic.
I think the transition doesn't work because most of the time either the developer is trying to milk the popularity of an old game or they're trying to reproduce the gameplay of the original without properly taking into account the 3d medium. The former, of course, is almost always the case.
But there certainly have been exceptions. I think the Metroid Prime series is one. It might not have the charm of the 2D version, but it certainly is great in its own right.
I think the games that make the transition well are those that reinvent the gameplay of the original to some extent. Or in the case of Final Fantasy 3 and 4 on the DS, they've basically recreated the original. Being an RPG, however, does make the transition a lot easier.
Ultimately, it comes down to the creativity and sensibility of the developer, not the chosen medium.
I don't believe this at all. Having played a number of online games dabbled in social networking somewhat I fail to see where the real benefit is, as described in this article. There still exists that barrier of anonymity and there is no real interaction with another human being. There's no eye contact, reading body language or a general need for considering the other persons thoughts and feelings.
Want to teach children communications skills. Hold big family gatherings where adults and children are all interacting with each other. Well, one problem I've encountered with many American families is that at gatherings children are usually segregated off to their own corner, relegated to the children's table.
I've observed this with friends and within my own family, kids are interact with real people on a regular basis tend to be more outgoing and mature. The kids and teenagers I know who are into gaming and networking either seem to always be in their own worlds at these gatherings. They either run off to the bedroom and sit in front of the computer, or they're sitting in some corner tapping away on a phone.
On a side note, I've noticed this tendency where whenever research demonstrates something positive about gaming it's embraced wholeheartedly. Whenever it shows something negative it's strongly dismissed as nonsense; the tag correlationnotcausation seems to be quite popular for those stories.
I suppose you're trying to say only prudes will be offended by that link. But a pixelated penis is a penis nonetheless. I don't want to explain to my coworkers why I've got one sitting on my desktop, complete with pubes.
Not safe for work. Period.
My personal issue with used games is that they cost only $5, at most $10, less than a new copy and what I'm getting out of the deal is questionable. Most of the time the instruction manual is missing, sometimes the package in damaged, and in some cases the CD has seen too much wear. And yet the condition of the package seems to have no bearing whatsoever on the cost of the game.
My thinking is, if the game isn't worth the money new then it's not worth buying period. Maybe I'll reconsider when the game is going for $20, which is an even better deal than getting one used. I've seen quite a few cases where discounted games were going for the same price or cheaper than used.
I've always felt that what retailers ask for used games is a blatant money grab, especially since they know that too many gamers lack the patience to wait for prices to drop.
That said, I have no problem whatsoever with the used game market. I can buy and sell used cars, furniture and electronics, why can't I do the same with games?
I love how that Wikipedia entry states, with absolutely certainty that the rising sea level is mainly a result of man-made global warming.
What I find interesting is that there is strong archeological evidence of populations thrived when the climate was warmer and the seas higher. One example being prehistoric Japan, 4000 BC to 2000 BC, when the seas were believed 5 to 6 meters higher. The indigenous population declined significantly when temperatures dropped.
These people on the Maldives would be screwed whether or not anyone wants to blame global warming. I suppose I'm being insensitive, but maybe they should have thought twice when they decided to settle land that's pretty much at sea level sitting out in the middle of the Indian ocean.
Frankly, I'm tired of this alarmist crap. I completely believe that the climate is changing, but when hasn't it been changing? This notion that humans are responsible for screwing everything about is about as arrogant, in my mind, as the belief people once had that humanity was at the center of the universe.
Instead of someone's remix, this video includes 9 minutes worth of clips from that episode.
Frankly, I think that the expectation that Obama and the Democrats are somehow going to do things any differently from Bush and his crew is naive. And the belief that somehow Obama is inherently better for civil liberties is equally naive, if not more so.
I never could fathom the logic behind people who believe so strongly in preserving civil liberties but at the same time support the notion of a much larger government which would control our healthcare, wealth and security. How will be able to preserve our freedoms when the government knows every little thing about us, even more thoroughly than they do now.
Well, only time will tell how things turn out. I expect one of two things will happen. Obama will make a big mess of things or not much of anything at all will change. And given the absurdly high expectations of some people I think they're going to be sorely disappointed.
I will concede one thing, however. This is a historic event. Obama being elected demonstrates that racism in this country, as an institution, is dead. And anyone, regardless of background and race, can become truly successful. I hope people remember that when they start pushing for socialism.
First of all, most republican and conservatives opposed the bailout. The politicians forced it down everyone's throat. The democrats probably supported it more enthusiastically because they're the ones getting campaign contributions from these banks. Obama was among the top of the list in contributions from Lehman Brothers among others.
Secondly, in what way, exactly, have you lost civil liberties or human rights? I see people as free to do whatever they please as they always have, if not more so.
Yep, and the UK, France, Germany and much of the rest of Europe are stunning examples of the failure of socialism. They're cutting back on social programs and privatizing where they can because they just can't sustain the system. And they've got these problems despite the fact that people are taxed heavily at all income levels.
One thing that always gets me is how people compare a nation like Denmark or Japan to the US. Those countries have relatively small and homogenous populations, unlike the US. They're in a situation where they have most of the population paying the system ensuring it's sustainable.
And even then, eventually problems arise, like in Japan, because of declining birth rates there aren't enough people paying in to support the aging population. From everything I've seen, unless we completely abandon any monetary system socialism is always doomed to failure in the long run.
I'll show you around some neighborhoods near where I live and tell me if it's a relative minority. I never said that these people were lazy. And my issue isn't simple that people are going out and spending money on luxuries. That's a secondary issue reflecting the real problem which is a lack of education and too much dependence on government.
Explain to me exactly how just giving a person money is going to pull them out of poverty.
No, we aren't seeking investors? Why would we be? The nature of our business doesn't require investors, and I'm guessing the majority of businesses are in the same situation.
I didn't say I was opposed to paying for this. Absolutely I'd support this if I knew the money was being spent wisely.
However, I want to see the government forced to manage its finances in the same way we're all forced to do so. Up until now the government has been operating like a pathetic welfare case who knows that next check will always be coming in.
As I've stated, the Republicans have made an absolute mess of things. They've spent at an alarming rate. The terrorist attacks and the war are a flimsy excuse for how utterly wasteful they've been. And yet they have the balls to come back now and insist that they're going to cut spending and taxes. So you won't get a disagreement from me here.
Beyond that, however, what incentive does the government currently have to cut waste? And I don't mean cutting entire programs. I mean doing careful accounting to identify waste at all levels. Buying overpriced equipment and services, eliminating inefficiencies, cutting staff that's just sitting around doing nothing, things like that. Deal with government agencies enough and the waste becomes glaringly obvious.
And to your last point, that's a huge generalization. So I'm supposed to believe that all wealthy people have gotten to that point on someone else's back? What happened to the notion of hard work?
I've got friends who through persistence and dedication are earning a comfortable living. Are you suggesting that they screwed someone to get to that point.
And are you also suggesting that somehow the poor have all found themselves in that situation by accident? It was all a matter of luck?
At the other extreme I've got friends who in high school, decided hanging out with friends and having a good time was more important than school work. Some of them managed to graduate, but just barely. Years late I've run into a couple of them working at some local retailer almost certainly barely managing more than minimum wage. I also have friends who have put themselves into serious debt because they spent way beyond their means. Was that bad luck, or poor decision making?
Granted, it's not entirely their fault. I blame the parents for not kicking them in the ass and giving enough of a shit to ensure they stay in school.
So it goes back to my point about education. The parents and children alike need to be educated on the importance of education, hard work and planning for the future. They need to be self-sufficient, not depend on the government for handouts. Wealth redistribution doesn't work.
It's as simple as that, and frankly I don't see how anyone could disagree with this.
I'll start by saying that the Republicans absolutely deserve to lose everything for the mess they've made the last 8 years. So much for the Republican revolution that brought them to power. Instead they've made an absolute mess and I see no sign of them changing things.
What I lament is the lack of viable third parties, but I'll get into that shortly.
First, I don't support Obama and here's one of the main reasons why... His constant talk about redistributing wealth and the consequences of his plans. Obama claims that he's going to cut taxes for people earning below $250,000.
First, it turns out he doesn't actually mean individuals, but actually households with dual incomes. For individuals the cutoff is speculated to be between $150,000 and $200,000.
Second, he isn't actually cutting taxes, but rather giving out a variety of rebates. This means that taxpayers have to specifically apply for these rebates, assuming they qualify. And in addition, it means people who don't even pay taxes are eligible for these rebates. Free money in addition to the welfare these people already get.
There are people who truly need financial help, specifically the mentally and physically disabled. Anyone who is able-bodied should be looking for a job if they don't currently have one. I'm all for helping these people, but handing out checks isn't the solution. When I stop seeing people driving around in SUVs with chrome rims and talking on the latest expensive mobile phones, but buying groceries with food stamps maybe I'll reconsider welfare.
I happen to live in a city most people in the surrounding suburbs wouldn't consider visiting let alone living in. So I see, first hand, the waste, and lack of education and respect.
The solution is education and exposure to the outside world. The children growing up in these poor communities need to get out. This means education programs for adults, financial aid, and opportunities for these children to get into better schools. And we need open discussion about what's afflicting these communities instead of the old immature nonsense that it's all a conspiracy to keep people down.
Additionally, how do Obama's tax increases on companies help anyone? My company has 6 full time employees, in addition to a few additional part time employees and freelancers. Assuming that each of us earned $50,000 that would mean my company needs to bring in at least $300,000 a year, just to cover salaries. Obviously, we're earning more than that. This means my company would be paying more in taxes under Obama's plan.
I qualify for Obama's rebates, but how will those help me if my company has to cut back? Will Obama's rebates make up the difference in lost salary? If the economy as a whole struggles because of these plans how will this help anyone?
Like it or not, companies create jobs. I realize it's become a fad to dump on corporations, and to a large extent they deserve all the criticism they get. But the fact is that companies make the jobs.
Obama claims he will cut capital gains tax to help small businesses. Can someone explain to me how this helps any business? My company doesn't have investments, how will this help us? And weren't the democrats outraged when Bush helped cut capital gains tax. At the time weren't they decrying that capital gains tax cuts only helped wealthy investors?
What frustrates me is to see what other countries are doing to stimulate their economies while the US seems to be headed in the opposite direction. It's a fact that American companies already pay among the highest corporate tax in the world. Ireland has thrived because of their considerable tax cuts. Last year Taiwan cut corporate tax to help ensure strong economic growth.
Just recently South Korea not only cut corporate taxes but they instituted a program where new small companies only paid half the taxes normally due in the first four years of business. They're serious about growing their economies, Obama seems more concerned about buying votes.
The prob
I've found that the various GSM phones I've had have caused different amounts of noise, I assume based on the strength of the transmitter. With my old phone I sometimes heard it faintly on my car's speakers. And if you've had one of these phones around a CRT the screen gets distorted as well.
One cool, somewhat unrelated, thing I used to sometimes hear over my computer speakers growing up was a passing truck driver talking on his CB. The guy's voice was quite distinct. The interesting thing was how susceptible PC speakers were, because I don't recall my father's stereo speakers ever picking it up. I can only assume it's because more power was required to drive those speakers.
Apple products seem to have this tendency to make people notice things that apparently they were oblivious to previously.
If you don't like DRM you shouldn't touch the game, period. That sends a stronger message than acquiring the game illegally. Otherwise you're just justifying to these companies the need for DRM.
And to make things worse, you make it seem like you'll download the game illegally even if the game has no DRM.
I meant exactly what I said. American imperialism is the excuse used for the resistance. But what's bringing about social change in the Middle East is the influence of foreign cultures, foreign from the perspective of people in the region.
The obvious sources are the internet, entertainment and consumer products in general. Given how widespread European presence is in the region, I'm not surprised if they're influenced most by European culture.
I'm convinced that this sort of thing is a last gasp amongst the extremists to hold onto the old ways. The fact is that the world is changing and nobody can stop it. The Middle East is being exposed to the outside world via the internet and other media. The religious hardliners are realizing that they're losing their hold on the people and I suppose like most people they don't like change.
I realize American imperialism is brought up as the reason for this violence. But I'm convinced that's bullshit. The widespread dissemination of foreign cultures is the more real and subtle threat.
I think it's similar to certain Christian groups in this country coming out trying to denounce evolution and force creationism on people. Deep down they realize their religion is being marginalized and are grasping at straws trying to make it relevant.
The problem is that they're confusing a crumbling power structure for faith when the two aren't connected. There's no reason whatsoever why a person can't be devoutly religious and still accept science and progress.
The key difference, however, is that Muslim extremists are more likely to blow things up to get their way, or at least threaten to do so. Sure, you get the occasional Christian nut who tries to shoot an abortion doctor or something, but that's the extent of it. But Christians consistently denounce the act. On the other hand, at best Muslims won't say anything at all and at worst will run into the streets in celebration.
But ultimately these small victories are insignificant in the long run. And having heard some guys complaining about how Middle Eastern is growing increasingly liberal the days of religious extremism are numbered.
Political correctness has crippled America. By no means am I endorsing bigotry and racism, but we should be able to have open discourse about issues without it devolving into claims of racism.
The percentage of the Muslim population in the US is .6% to 1%. The last time I checked we still had free speech and the presence of this passage in a game is not intentionally offensive from what I can tell.
When Andres Serrano dumped a crucifix in urine and photographed it he wasn't banned from displaying his work. Hell, a nun actually stated in an interview that the work was not blasphemous but rather an example of what people have done to Christ.