Your overall point is valid, but you're ignoring the fact that non-combat playstyles are part of the game, too. There are things you can do in the game that involve zero conflict and zero combat. It can't hurt to try them.
Your fishing pole analogy is faulty; I'm not suggesting that you use the fishing pole for something other than fishing--I'm suggesting that you catch a different kind of fish for a change.
The AFK macrotainers are partly due to the hologrind, but partly due to the chicken-and-egg problem of nobody wanting to interact, preferring rather to churlishly demand buffs and treat entertainers like doormats. If you make an effort to find someone who is ATK, you will find us. We are out there.
I understand that some people are unable or unwilling to talk; I hate it myself, which is why I force myself to do it in-game.
If you feel there's nothing left to do, then I hope you're not still playing. And don't take that as "stfu plzkthxbye", because it's not--you're just wasting your own time and money if you're not deriving any enjoyment from the game.
I've been playing SWG for a while now. I play an entertainer, and it's been fun from the first day. It continues to be fun. No, I'm not rich. No, I'm not powerful. But I do have fun. And my character has a wide enough range of talents that if it ever does get boring, I can do something else and it will still be fun.
Here's an idea: instead of seeing how many mobs you can beat up, or how many Rebels you can kill, why not do something different with your playing time? Go to a cantina and actually interact with the entertainers rather than wiping off your battle fatigue and mind wounds in silence and then stalking away. Go to an image designer and change your look rather than sit in stony silence for ten minutes while your stats migrate. Go collect badges. There's a ton of stuff to do and see. Combat is not the be-all and end-all.
And if absolutely none of that sounds fun, then why are you bothering? I mean, it's your LEISURE time. You shouldn't spend your own time on something that makes you so angry that you're not enjoying it anymore.
I suppose it's more accurate to say that he doesn't really care about the history behind whatever it is he's doing with Trek. He's not a Star Trek fan, and while that's not a sin (Nick Meyer didn't know anything about it before he made STII), it is a sin that he doesn't particularly know or care to find out about the history of Trek.
I don't think you're being hypersensitive at all. I'm Hawaiian, and while I'm not really offended by the cultural misappropriation here (the use of "kahuna" is far, FAR worse), it does bother me if I think about it for too long.
When you're in the office, that is. Tell him you are absolutely, positively dedicated to providing your company the best possible service during working hours.
When you're at home, your time is your own, unless they're paying you extra. If your job is not like that, it's time to find a new job. "It's your job, suck it up," is not an appropriate response here; you're a human being, not a disposable resource to be used up.
Your CIO needs to show YOU that he's dedicated to having the best possible service available, and that he's willing to dedicate the resources to ensure it. If he wants 24-hour cell phone availability, he better be paying for the phone. If they're going to require you to use your own resources to perform your job, then they should at the VERY least reimburse you on a prorated schedule for the amount of time you spend using your net connection from home. Even if it's only a couple of bucks a month--hell, especially if it's only a couple of bucks a month.
As it is, all he's showing you is that you're not worth a goddamn unless they can squeeze every last drop out of you that they possibly can.
Wow, this is exactly what I was going to put. Glad I read through the comments first.
Smithsonian is a great, great magazine. As you said, there's pretty much guaranteed to be at least one good article in every issue--for example, the little blurb on urban exploration a few months ago. And the column on the last page (I forget what it's called) is pretty reliably funny. I've even enjoyed reading articles that I thought I would have no interest in, like that one a while back about collecting bugs in--Central Park, was it?
My only real problem of late with Smithsonian is that it's been used several times to shill for Hollywood movies like "Master and Commander" and "The Alamo," and I'm always disappointed when that happens. Still, Smithsonian is well, well worth the subscription cost. (Unlike Premiere, which is the other magazine I subscribe to.)
Perhaps yours is, since the two situations aren't really analogous. Stupidity causes auto-train accidents. Not knowing any better causes misapplication of manpower to projects.
I don't think it *is* immediately obvious that adding another person to a late project makes it later; how can it be? That's the whole reason that Brooks wrote MMM--it seemed counterintuitive that adding manpower to the project was detrimental.
Then again...it's true that knowing something and doing something about that knowledge are two entirely different prospects, so in a way, you're right. But I still disagree.
(Also, auto-train accidents are caused by a wide variety of factors, and they're *accidents*. Misapplication of manpower is deliberate, if well-intentioned.)
The book itself was halfway interesting, but it didn't say anything that anybody with a couple years of software engineering experience didn't already know.
Then or now?
Obviously not then, because Brooks was already an experienced engineer when he wrote the book--and the reason he wrote the book is because he wanted to share the lessons he'd learned.
And obviously not now, because software development teams still make the mistakes that Brooks talks about it. Hell, my company just tried to throw more people at a project to try and get it done faster. Fortunately, we were able to stop that from happening.
I think the reason that you believe your statement to be true is that Brooks' clarity of presentation makes you think that the ideas are obvious. They're not. If they were obvious, they wouldn't still happen.
I haven't seen Terminal, and I probably won't because it fundamentally doesn't interest me. I guess I just don't see as much difference between wistful earnestness and earnest wistfulness as I do between roughneck manliness and manly roughneck-ness (roughneckhood?). I guess we'll need to agree to disagree.
I'm exactly the opposite; I don't care for the Madden series. I wish I could pinpoint exactly why, but I just can't. I can't get used to the game, I guess. I dunno.
The Sega products just always seemed to make more sense. I guess it's because, like you did with Madden, I played a lot more of the Sega NFL products, so I'm just used to the way it goes.
I'm happy, because now I can buy the new one when it comes out, rather than waiting for it to come down to $20 or less. EA should do the same; I'd buy Madden for twenty bucks just to give it more of a try than a three-day rental affords.
If you think John Wayne wasn't a great actor, you haven't seen very many John Wayne movies. I'd suggest Stagecoach, The Searchers, The Quiet Man, Red River, and the entire cavalry trilogy (Fort Apache, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, and Rio Grande).
I don't think that article is correct; here's the Second Life exchange on GOM, and it lists blocks of 250 Linden for about a buck. Unless I'm reading it wrong, which may well be the case.
Be careful of the Magic Treehouse books. My daughter enjoys them, too, and I enjoy reading them to her, but, for example, the one purportedly about ancient Hawaii was basically made up from whole cloth. It was as if the author's research consisted of watching a half-hour infomercial on Hawaiian vacations, and only paying attention to about half of it. I had to stop about halfway through and say "Look, none of this is right, I can't go on reading this book." It made me wonder about the rest of the series.
MT is okay if you can supplement it with real books on their topics. Which, I guess, just ends up being exactly the same point you make...if you don't have the interest in the subject to say "Wow, I wonder if that was right or not," then you're not going to get anywhere.
I think a lot of people would like to see that, but given that Berman doesn't give a damn about anything having to do with Star Trek's history, we're not likely to see it unless they can work in 30th Centurry timeship garbage.
You can always color over it after the contest is done. Just lay out the design you actually want, and outline it, but have the tattoo artist write the words in instead of filling it in with color. Shouldn't be a problem.
Perhaps you don't need specifically Christian games. I know I don't.
But there are some fundamentalist denominations that believe that thought and deed are equal; this is the root of a lot of the objection to pen-and-paper RPGs, or so I've heard: that imagining you are doing something ungodly, like casting a spell, is tantamount to actually casting a spell. (From a more rational Christian standpoint, of course, this is absurd.) But it stands to reason that there will be some people who want to exercise their imaginations only in certain ways, and that's probably where a Christian game's target market is.
Also, I think you're underestimating the ability of a game to be educational on points of faith. On Slashdot not so long ago there was an article about a guy who knew some answers in history class because he had played...uh, Pirates, was it? I think so...so I could see the same thing applying to a decently-made game with a Christian perspective. The key word, unfortunately, is "decently-made", and you're spot-on about most of it being poor ripoffs.
Religion doesn't cause war any more than a gun will rise up and shoot someone all by itself.
People cause war. We may use religion as an excuse, but I think people that wage war--at least in the name of Christianity--are adhering more to the word of man than the word of God. Unfortunately, favoring the word of man over the word of God seems to be the standard MO for most religious people today.
...sheet music, that is. I used to work for a music store, and we had a machine for sheet music that was similar to this one. You put in your money, select your song and key, and it prints out.
I don't recall ever seeing anyone using it, which made me mad mostly because I was the one who had to unload it from the truck and it was dang heavy.
People in general are just not going to want to do anything more than push one button, maybe two. It's a lot easier to paw through the bargain bins and the store shelves.
I also just don't trust something like this. Personally, I want to take something physically from a shelf and walk it up to the counter so that I know exactly what I'm getting.
Slashdot Mirror
Your overall point is valid, but you're ignoring the fact that non-combat playstyles are part of the game, too. There are things you can do in the game that involve zero conflict and zero combat. It can't hurt to try them.
Your fishing pole analogy is faulty; I'm not suggesting that you use the fishing pole for something other than fishing--I'm suggesting that you catch a different kind of fish for a change.
The AFK macrotainers are partly due to the hologrind, but partly due to the chicken-and-egg problem of nobody wanting to interact, preferring rather to churlishly demand buffs and treat entertainers like doormats. If you make an effort to find someone who is ATK, you will find us. We are out there.
I understand that some people are unable or unwilling to talk; I hate it myself, which is why I force myself to do it in-game.
If you feel there's nothing left to do, then I hope you're not still playing. And don't take that as "stfu plzkthxbye", because it's not--you're just wasting your own time and money if you're not deriving any enjoyment from the game.
I've been playing SWG for a while now. I play an entertainer, and it's been fun from the first day. It continues to be fun. No, I'm not rich. No, I'm not powerful. But I do have fun. And my character has a wide enough range of talents that if it ever does get boring, I can do something else and it will still be fun.
Here's an idea: instead of seeing how many mobs you can beat up, or how many Rebels you can kill, why not do something different with your playing time? Go to a cantina and actually interact with the entertainers rather than wiping off your battle fatigue and mind wounds in silence and then stalking away. Go to an image designer and change your look rather than sit in stony silence for ten minutes while your stats migrate. Go collect badges. There's a ton of stuff to do and see. Combat is not the be-all and end-all.
And if absolutely none of that sounds fun, then why are you bothering? I mean, it's your LEISURE time. You shouldn't spend your own time on something that makes you so angry that you're not enjoying it anymore.
Here you go, an article in Salon from a few years ago.
I suppose it's more accurate to say that he doesn't really care about the history behind whatever it is he's doing with Trek. He's not a Star Trek fan, and while that's not a sin (Nick Meyer didn't know anything about it before he made STII), it is a sin that he doesn't particularly know or care to find out about the history of Trek.
Of course, he's also inept.
I don't think you're being hypersensitive at all. I'm Hawaiian, and while I'm not really offended by the cultural misappropriation here (the use of "kahuna" is far, FAR worse), it does bother me if I think about it for too long.
That's not funny; it's true. Berman hates Star Trek, and has made no secret of it.
When you're in the office, that is. Tell him you are absolutely, positively dedicated to providing your company the best possible service during working hours.
When you're at home, your time is your own, unless they're paying you extra. If your job is not like that, it's time to find a new job. "It's your job, suck it up," is not an appropriate response here; you're a human being, not a disposable resource to be used up.
Your CIO needs to show YOU that he's dedicated to having the best possible service available, and that he's willing to dedicate the resources to ensure it. If he wants 24-hour cell phone availability, he better be paying for the phone. If they're going to require you to use your own resources to perform your job, then they should at the VERY least reimburse you on a prorated schedule for the amount of time you spend using your net connection from home. Even if it's only a couple of bucks a month--hell, especially if it's only a couple of bucks a month.
As it is, all he's showing you is that you're not worth a goddamn unless they can squeeze every last drop out of you that they possibly can.
Wow, this is exactly what I was going to put. Glad I read through the comments first.
Smithsonian is a great, great magazine. As you said, there's pretty much guaranteed to be at least one good article in every issue--for example, the little blurb on urban exploration a few months ago. And the column on the last page (I forget what it's called) is pretty reliably funny. I've even enjoyed reading articles that I thought I would have no interest in, like that one a while back about collecting bugs in--Central Park, was it?
My only real problem of late with Smithsonian is that it's been used several times to shill for Hollywood movies like "Master and Commander" and "The Alamo," and I'm always disappointed when that happens. Still, Smithsonian is well, well worth the subscription cost. (Unlike Premiere, which is the other magazine I subscribe to.)
Perhaps yours is, since the two situations aren't really analogous. Stupidity causes auto-train accidents. Not knowing any better causes misapplication of manpower to projects.
I don't think it *is* immediately obvious that adding another person to a late project makes it later; how can it be? That's the whole reason that Brooks wrote MMM--it seemed counterintuitive that adding manpower to the project was detrimental.
Then again...it's true that knowing something and doing something about that knowledge are two entirely different prospects, so in a way, you're right. But I still disagree.
(Also, auto-train accidents are caused by a wide variety of factors, and they're *accidents*. Misapplication of manpower is deliberate, if well-intentioned.)
The book itself was halfway interesting, but it didn't say anything that anybody with a couple years of software engineering experience didn't already know.
Then or now?
Obviously not then, because Brooks was already an experienced engineer when he wrote the book--and the reason he wrote the book is because he wanted to share the lessons he'd learned.
And obviously not now, because software development teams still make the mistakes that Brooks talks about it. Hell, my company just tried to throw more people at a project to try and get it done faster. Fortunately, we were able to stop that from happening.
I think the reason that you believe your statement to be true is that Brooks' clarity of presentation makes you think that the ideas are obvious. They're not. If they were obvious, they wouldn't still happen.
I haven't seen Terminal, and I probably won't because it fundamentally doesn't interest me. I guess I just don't see as much difference between wistful earnestness and earnest wistfulness as I do between roughneck manliness and manly roughneck-ness (roughneckhood?). I guess we'll need to agree to disagree.
I'm exactly the opposite; I don't care for the Madden series. I wish I could pinpoint exactly why, but I just can't. I can't get used to the game, I guess. I dunno.
The Sega products just always seemed to make more sense. I guess it's because, like you did with Madden, I played a lot more of the Sega NFL products, so I'm just used to the way it goes.
I'm happy, because now I can buy the new one when it comes out, rather than waiting for it to come down to $20 or less. EA should do the same; I'd buy Madden for twenty bucks just to give it more of a try than a three-day rental affords.
Wow, I guess we're miles apart if you think Tom Hanks is a great actor; I guess I see in him the same kind of "sameness" you see in John Wayne.
Nobody but nobody can argue about William H. Macy, though. The man is phenomenal; I'll see anything he's in. He brings dignity, even to crap.
Wallace Shawn is good too.
If you think John Wayne wasn't a great actor, you haven't seen very many John Wayne movies. I'd suggest Stagecoach, The Searchers, The Quiet Man, Red River, and the entire cavalry trilogy (Fort Apache, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, and Rio Grande).
I'll give you Clint Eastwood, though.
I don't think that article is correct; here's the Second Life exchange on GOM, and it lists blocks of 250 Linden for about a buck. Unless I'm reading it wrong, which may well be the case.
Be careful of the Magic Treehouse books. My daughter enjoys them, too, and I enjoy reading them to her, but, for example, the one purportedly about ancient Hawaii was basically made up from whole cloth. It was as if the author's research consisted of watching a half-hour infomercial on Hawaiian vacations, and only paying attention to about half of it. I had to stop about halfway through and say "Look, none of this is right, I can't go on reading this book." It made me wonder about the rest of the series.
MT is okay if you can supplement it with real books on their topics. Which, I guess, just ends up being exactly the same point you make...if you don't have the interest in the subject to say "Wow, I wonder if that was right or not," then you're not going to get anywhere.
Yup; all you got for XYZZY in Zork was a hollow voice calling you a fool. I loved that.
I think a lot of people would like to see that, but given that Berman doesn't give a damn about anything having to do with Star Trek's history, we're not likely to see it unless they can work in 30th Centurry timeship garbage.
You can always color over it after the contest is done. Just lay out the design you actually want, and outline it, but have the tattoo artist write the words in instead of filling it in with color. Shouldn't be a problem.
In a just world, you'd get +5 Funny.
Perhaps you don't need specifically Christian games. I know I don't.
But there are some fundamentalist denominations that believe that thought and deed are equal; this is the root of a lot of the objection to pen-and-paper RPGs, or so I've heard: that imagining you are doing something ungodly, like casting a spell, is tantamount to actually casting a spell. (From a more rational Christian standpoint, of course, this is absurd.) But it stands to reason that there will be some people who want to exercise their imaginations only in certain ways, and that's probably where a Christian game's target market is.
Also, I think you're underestimating the ability of a game to be educational on points of faith. On Slashdot not so long ago there was an article about a guy who knew some answers in history class because he had played...uh, Pirates, was it? I think so...so I could see the same thing applying to a decently-made game with a Christian perspective. The key word, unfortunately, is "decently-made", and you're spot-on about most of it being poor ripoffs.
Religion doesn't cause war any more than a gun will rise up and shoot someone all by itself.
People cause war. We may use religion as an excuse, but I think people that wage war--at least in the name of Christianity--are adhering more to the word of man than the word of God. Unfortunately, favoring the word of man over the word of God seems to be the standard MO for most religious people today.
Deer Hunter :)
One down, one to go; you obviously missed The Legend of the Lone Ranger starring the horrible Klinton Spillsbury.
Hey, if they made Steve Buscemi Gilligan, it might not be so...well, yeah, it would still be bad.
...sheet music, that is. I used to work for a music store, and we had a machine for sheet music that was similar to this one. You put in your money, select your song and key, and it prints out.
I don't recall ever seeing anyone using it, which made me mad mostly because I was the one who had to unload it from the truck and it was dang heavy.
People in general are just not going to want to do anything more than push one button, maybe two. It's a lot easier to paw through the bargain bins and the store shelves.
I also just don't trust something like this. Personally, I want to take something physically from a shelf and walk it up to the counter so that I know exactly what I'm getting.