Yeah, we really aren't getting anywhere, but who cares. I won't be offended or think that I won the argument if you decide this is a waste of your time, but I'm enjoying it so I'm going to continue. The problem with that last theory is two fold. First, in most games, you really aren't worried about surviving at the start. You may be really weak in the beginning, but monsters are even weaker. You have to really work to die in the beginning, or just be a complete idiot. The other problem is that being a level 30 character in a level 1 world is just an arbitrary redefinition of levels. That is no different from starting at level 1 and fighting characters who are significantly weaker than you are. You are just starting at level 30 and fighting level 1 creatures, who are significantly weaker than you are. It's not exactly the same thing, but the essence of it is.
My starting assumption is that any other system of levels is basically the same as a system where you start at level 1. The assumption that fighting enemies that are much weaker than you is pointless was given to support that claim by contradicting a counter claim. It isn't always the case, so I admit it's not the best counter, but I think you'll agree that it holds true in most cases.
Again, I fail to see how your example provides any counter to my claim, especially since the LOTR example is close to my example with characters who start off at different strengths but in different areas. Let's say we use this LOTR example in which you can play the game as any of the characters you mentioned. Now let's say you split that game up into 3 games, one for each character. In each of those three games, you start off as the weakest character possible. We can combine the games together to make the original game, but you still start off as the weakest character for each path of the game. Any games can be combined in this fashion to create a game in which some characters are stronger, which fits you example. However, the characters are still weak in their respective paths so it isn't any different from starting at level 0.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible to make something different from the norm, I'm saying that there is a certain formula and that every RPG is analogous to that (I think that if they weren't, they'd no longer be an RPG).
Think of it like a straight line on a graph. We can move that line, but it's basically the same line except for where it meets the axes. We can move the origin wherever we want, but the slope of that line will never change. I think this is basically what I'm trying to say. It doesn't matter how strong you are at the start, the game progresses from the start so you must start as the (relatively) weakest character.
But that's the thing, it doesn't matter where you start, because you are always a nobody compared to the people you will have to fight. Given any game, you can always come up with a way to start off weaker than you did. In the Suikoden series, you actually fought flies at low levels (and stronger flies later, but that's not really the point). Taking that as an example, nearly every other game starts you off as a bad ass compared to Suikoden. Furthermore, most RPGs don't start you off as an outcast loser, they start you off as an untrained individual who also happens to have the potential to save the world or is the only person on the planet with some special power.
I understand the motivation that makes developers start you off at a low level, but that really isn't important to my argument because I'm taking a step away and trying to show that it isn't really possible to do it any other way. It's not so much that it isn't possible, but that doing it any other way is just a small transformation that is essentially the same thing. If any game can start you off at a lower or higher level (combine that with some of my other arguments that I don't want to repeat to be redundant), then the idea of starting off as the weakest character isn't valid. There are a few games where you can start and play a few different characters. Some of these characters are stronger, but they all start off in different areas, so they start off fighting different monsters. Since you don't meet up with the other characters until you play each character for a certain amount of time, which usually means more time for the weaker characters and less for the strong, they all tend to have the same level once they meet. This really cancels out the point that they started at different levels, since it is analogous to starting at level 1 for their respective areas, and then some levelling more quickly than others. I think that any other scenario that anyone can come up with is just a minor transformation on the "start at level one" theme, so wanting something different is just asking for the same thing... sort of.
I had read all of your post before replying. I am familiar with Dragon Quest / Dragon Warrior games with slimes, and yes, they are directly comparable to the rats, etc. Before I respond to the rest of the post, I'm going to explain why your original post wasn't ontopic.
First, you gave information about three of the games I mentioned in what seemed to be an attempt to counter my point. You explained that, contrary to my initial statement, bunnies existed in the game, and then went to clarify that you never fought them, which was part of my initial statement. It was very clear what you were doing. In essence, you said nothing new, yet were somehow attempting to correct me. Not that I have a problem with being corrected, if I say something incorrect.
You then went on to talk about how the presence of bunnies or other small animals does not dictate whether the game is good or bad. No one claimed that it did. This is like walking in to a conversation where two people are arguing about who spends more: Democrats or Republicans. Then you say, "Who cares, they are all crooks." Whether or not that is true doesn't matter one bit because it doesn't answer the intial question, and no one claimed that it wasn't true. It was never claimed that there is some correlation between the use of bunnies and the quality of the game. In fact, in some of the examples, I listed games that broke the rule but were really bad (at least IMO, Auto Assault was horrible). It's not that I don't agree with you, but I'm sorry, your statement wasn't relevant.
And how is that very different from starting at level one and controlling a bunch of creatures that are weaker than you? It's not quite the same because your idea sounds like it would contain some different gameplay, but the level idea is the still there. Instead of controlling weaker creatures, you are controlling weaker characters who could have potentially been your character, even though you aren't able to actually play and start at their level. Arbitrarily designating levels doesn't change the fact that you start at some level.
That's kinda my point, if the where you start is arbitrary, why do most RPGs start you at the same place? It's like level 1 was defined by the RPG gods as kill rats, bunnies and snakes (little ones), and no developer dare break that commandment.
In that case, I agree with you that it's kinda irritating to fight the same monsters at the start of every game. However, if we look at most RPGs, we pretty much fight the same types of monsters throughout the game. How many RPGs don't have any dragons in them? But if we look harder, we can find a lot of games that break away from the norm. Auto Assault, for example, is an MMORPG really far from the norm. There aren't rats or bunnies in Disgaea 2. Some of the space RPGs have rats, but you aren't gonna see any bunnies or snakes in those. I think XenoSaga and the DotHack games are rat and bunny free. I'm not saying that most games don't start you off fighting rats and bunnies, but there are still a lot of games that have other monsters in the beginning. I think that's one of those things that since we think it happens a lot, we notice it a lot and assume it happens more than it actually does. Kinda like people who believe psychics or think that the number 47 appears more frequently than most others (I went to Pomona College where they talked about that a lot). And don't get me wrong, I fall into that trap sometimes just like everybody else.
But in general most games have you start off in the same place... pretty damn helpless. Why must I be somebody challenged in a toe-to-toe fight with a rat or bunny (non-vorpal type)? Can't I start off as an average or even above average fighter, and progress to deity from there?
Ok, let me give such an example. Let's say I make a game where you play as the strongest man on earth, who somehow is now able to battle Gods and steal their powers or something to gain levels. Now you're far better than the average human, but since you are only fighting Gods in the game, it's really like you are the lowest level again. So let's instead say that you are this man but the game starts after you've already defeated half the Gods, so you have their power and are stronger than all of those you defeated. The game starts and you begin to fight the stronger Gods, so again, you are the weakest of all the Gods you fight in the game.
The point is, your level is determined by the set of monsters you fight. You will always start out at the weakest level possible that still allows you to beat the lowest enemies because if you started out with average strength compared to the set of monsters, there'd be no point in including most of the weaker monsters in the game. On the other hand, if your only complaint is that you don't like fighting monsters like bunnies and rats, then its completely reasonable to say that there should be a game where you start out fighting skeletons and zombies. Of course, after playing a couple games where you start off as average, you'd want to start out stronger... and the cycle continues. (again, not really directed at you personally)
Yes, you're absolutely right, and that's why we can't compare RPGs to FPSs in many ways. I don't agree with saying that RPGs are an exercise in passing time unless you think reading is an exercise in passing time, and if you think that, then I can pretty easily argue that everything is an exercise in passing time. Just because you aren't perfecting a "skill" that is easily observable (like in FPSs), doesn't mean that you are just passing time.
But as for the the start of your response, you're right about the skill part in RPGs, and that definitely makes it hard for them to start you at a higher "level". I think that pretty much supports my idea that you can't start higher levels. Even if they start you with more items, skills, and weapons, that's still the start, so its the lowest level in the game. If we start off with too much stuff, then there isn't much point in playing.
Good question. I totally understand your relation, and you probably realize the differences I'm about to state, but I'm gonna say them anyway.
The Labors of Hercules: 12 labors, most of them pretty direct (as in, he goes and gets the object instead of needing a dozen things before he can get the object)
Auto Assault: I couldn't find an exact number of quests, but I found one site that listed 120 quests. Of the 120, 111 were levels 1-9, 8 were 10-20, and one was 20+. From playing the game up to about level 25, I think that there were fewer quests as you gained levels, but not a big difference. I thinks it's a pretty safe bet to say that there are an average of 70 quests for every ten levels, and with 80 possible levels, that's 5600 quests. Considering that there are general as well as class and race specific quests, we'd have to cut that number way down, but I think there are at least a few hundred for any one character type. I don't think I fought more than 2 bosses to get to level 25 in all of the quests because 99% were go here, kill this, bring back item quests. At least Herc got to kill some fun at the end of each of his quests.
But seriously, the problem isn't that you are travelling somewhere to kill a monster that has an important item that is needed by a group of people or for you to do something else, the problem is that it is soooo much more unimaginative and repetitive than that. Let's look at Shadow of the Colossus as an example. The game can be summed up as "go here, kill this, return, repeat", but those actions are so much more involved. First you have to travel through a beautiful world to find the monster, then you have to figure out how to kill (usually involved solving a puzzle of how to climb the monster), then you get warped back to the start and find another monster. Contrast that with Auto Assault where the only real difference between the quests is the location of the monster, the name and shape of the monster, and the name of the person you talk to afterwards. However, after a few quests, all of those things just repeat so you aren't ever doing anything new. I'm not sure if that's still really clear on what I mean by "go here, kill this, return, repeat", but assume that I'm saying it in a monotonous, robotic tone, and that should get the idea across.
One could argue that MySpace is a carrier just like the telephone company is. MySpace is a gateway to information; it holds the information that you want other people to have. The argument is obviously much more in depth than that, and I'm really not saying that I think MySpace is a carrier, but I'm not sure that it isn't.
I am sure that MySpace should not be the same as your pool in your backyard. You don't see why virtual spaces should be exempt from the same kind of regulation? How about because they aren't the same as your pool? They're virtual, not physical. There may be some similarities between your pool and MySpace (even though I think most of those similarities are a stretch), but there are definitely some fundamental differences between the two. You can die in your pool, but you can't die on MySpace. There's a slim chance that someone you meet on MySpace may hurt you, but you can meet that same person on the way home from school or at a local park. Things on the internet are not the same as things in the real world. Virtual is not the same as physical. Just because some people can't tell the difference between the two doesn't mean that they are the same.
And I find it bitterly amusing that the same Slashdot community who wants to put the blame on the parents in this case - raises a huge outcry whenever someone floats the idea of logging software as limiting the rights of the child.
That's a bullshit statement. You can be against logging software but still think that parents should take care of their kids because using logging software is not the only way to do it. In reverse, logging software does not ensure that you are protecting your kids. One is not exclusive of the other. I put the blame on parents because they should be teaching their kids that people on the internet aren't always truthful and that they should never try to meet someone on the internet without talking to the parents about it. If I have kids and one of them meets someone on MySpace, I'll definitely take them to meet the person at some diner or public place (and I'll go in with them of course), because if that person is some scary child molester, you better believe that my kid won't try to go off and meet up with the next person by him/herself. That's getting offtopic though. It isn't that most slashdotters think that parent's don't have a right to monitor their kids, its that most of us don't think that that is the best answer. I think that treating your kids with respect and honestly explaining how things work is the best way to protect them.
Furthermore, why do we need to blame anyone other than the 19 year old guy who lied about his age? I mean, it's fine to spread the blame around because I'm sure that other people involved could have done better, but all this happened because of that 19 year old, not because of MySpace or the parents. Nobody ever likes to hear it, but shit happens. It doesn't matter what parents, teachers, police, businesses, or governments do, there will always be child molesters (unless we go to some real extreme where everyone is in a coma for the rest of their lives, but even then I think they'd find a way). It's fine to try and prevent it from happening again, but rational people should be able to reach a point where they can say, "I'm reasonably safe. I recognize that I can be hurt at any time, but I'm relatively safe." We keep getting safer and safer yet more and more scared.
I can see how a lot of people might not like that, but I think that is exactly why people who enjoy RPGs play them. That's why I play them at least. If I find a flash game online that lets me build levels and get stronger (remember Odell Down Under? where you're a fish that grows bigger?), I'll play for a couple hours. I enjoy that kind of thing. I think that they put franchise mode in sports games for people like me. We like the progression. I think the more important points of the article were the ones talking about the tedium of how to progress. His FFXII example was right on the mark. I played FFXII for 127 hours before I finally gave up trying to complete it and just beat it. I bet that the majority of that time was spent walking. A little bit of walking is fine, but when it takes 30 minutes to get somewhere (because it just takes that long to move, not because it's a challenge), that's pretty damn frustrating. I do agree with you about the "getting lost books" part, because it seems like so many quests in games, especially MMORPGs, are just "go here, kill this, pick up item, return".
As for the "Most RPGs start you off unimaginatively at the absolute lowest level" statement, that's really not fair, and I don't think it's true. One reason, assuming that a game involves gaining levels, you have to start at some level. Regardless of what that level is, it's the absolute lowest level. I mean, you can't start at a higher level or else that would be the new absolute lowest level. Another reason looks at it from a different perspective in that if you take any game, its reasonable to say that the character could have started off weaker. By that I mean that given any first character with some starting abilities and statistics, you can always make those abilities weaker, even if you have to go into negative values, so you never start at the absolute lowest level. From those reasons, I think that either every game must start at the absolute lowest level, so the absolute lowest level is meaningless, or you can always start at a lower level, so there is no absolute lowest level.
As I've said a few times now, I never said he stole anything. I was comparing YouTube turning over identifying information for a subpeona to a witness giving testimony about a mugging suspect's identity. Nowhere did I saw that the man stole anything.
Fair enough. Just to explain what the way I saw things one more time: #2 missed my point about being a witness and instead focused on the difference between the two crimes, which I saw as being irrelevant (which isn't always the case, but I didn't think it was important for my example). I saw #3 clarify my point by saying that it wasn't about which crime is more right or wrong, but that they were both crimes so the witness would be doing the right thing by reporting any information about it. Now I see where you were coming from, and I don't disagree with it; I just saw it from a different perspective.
Anyway, given how many posts get "yes, no, maybe" as tags, do you think it's unreasonable to have "donoevil" as a tag on a subject where some people think Google has done something bad?
Now that's a tough one. Normally, I'd say that's completely reasonable. However, with the way people look at the "Do no evil" motto, it seems like everything that has to do with Google would have a "donoevil" tag. I'd bet that if we looked at every story that had to do with Google over the last 6 months, 99% would have a comment about how the story shows Google is doing evil. Furthermore, the vast majority of those Google stories would have a whole argument about whether or not Google is doing evil. I don't follow the tags much, so I'm not sure if that answered your question in relation to the "yes, no, maybe" tags, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that question.
If you just look at that statement, then you're absolutely right, but you're taking it out of context. The original post (mine) was about comparing the difference between being a witness of one crime or another. The first reply confused this with equating the two crimes to be equal on a moral level (sharing common moral space). Then the "common moral space in that they are both against the law" quote came into play, which in my opinion, was intended to point that the two crimes were being compared because they were both against the law, not because they are equally wrong in people's eyes. I know this is all typed instead of being a conversation, but if you took those comments and made them a spoken conversation, I don't think there would be so much confusion.
Most libraries get their funding from a combination federal, state, and local governments. Which one gets to make the laws? Furthermore, the government is supposed to work for the people. If different people want to use their libraries in different ways, the government shouldn't prevent that but should instead allow each library to create its own policy that meets the needs of the community.
I'm not saying that it isn't appropriate for a state (or other government) to make a law that determines the legitimate purposes of the library, I'm just saying that that isn't always the case, and in this case, I don't think it is the state's place to step in.
It isn't that you took the person's comment in the way that he or she said it, it's that you failed to take the comment in the context that it was given. I didn't have much trouble understanding the person after reading the comments that led to it, but maybe that's just because what the person said related to my original post so I had a jump on knowing the train of thought. It seemed like you jumped into a thread and commented on one post without taking the context into consideration. Kinda like walking into a room just as someone is saying "so yeah, I had sex with my sister" and then telling them that incest is wrong and they need to get help, when that was actually just a punchline to a dirty joke.
And the criticism mentioned is criticism for doing evil.. not directly equal to actually being evil but it's a clear relation
Exactly, I knew that just as much as the GP should have known that I wasn't equating following the law to doing the morally right thing. That really isn't the point though.
For a different question, can you point out a part in my original post (or my second post with the exception to quoting you and responding to it) where I used the word copyright? I really don't see this as being a copyright issue, and I'm not even sure if the only charge here is copyright infringement. He uploaded an episode of a TV show before it was aired on television. Let's just look at that and forget about anything else he might have done. Do you think what he did is legal? Do you think it is legal to leak an episode of a show before it is broadcast? Do you think that what he did was good? I think that what he did was both wrong and illegal and that opinion has nothing to do with copyright.
since the courts (by definition) follow the law, and the law in this case is evil.
That's really not how it works, and there is no part of the definition of courts that say they must follow the law. Judges are allowed to do a lot of things in a court case, and at many times judges make the law by setting down precedents.
Can we try not to pick apart speech so much and maybe give people a little benefit of the doubt? MightyYar seemed to be talking about whether the two crimes are equally "bad". Dave seemed to be making the point that regardless of which is worse, they are both against the law. Then you just took his wording as an opportunity to show that you know the definition of morality. I'm sorry, I just don't see how an inability to read between the lines makes you insightful. Seems to me that that's pretty much the opposite.
Ok, you're giving a hypothetical situation in which many of the same rules do not apply. That's kinda like comparing two different science experiments, but saying that one of them was done in a world where some of the rules of physics are reversed. It kinda ruins the comparison.
This happened in the US and presumably the man will be tried here, so I was running under the assumption that it will be under a relatively fair court. I took a situation and changed a couple variables to illustrate a point. If you want to change more variables, you can find a variety of "correct" answers to the situation but you'll also find that those answers aren't as applicable. If you think that the man will be tried in courts that resemble some totalitarian regime, that's fine, but then we aren't talking about the same thing anymore. To illustrate this point, what if we take your situation, but change it a little so the guy you see jaywalking is actually a mass murdered who you saw kill your family and ten thousand other people but beat the case, are you evil for giving this guy up on the jaywalking charge? I'm not saying I don't agree with your hypothetical situation, I'm just saying that I don't think it is closely related to the subject anymore than my mass murderer scenario is related to yours.
It's been said before, but good and evil are not the same as legal and illegal.
Can you point out the part of my post that said good and evil were the same as legal and illegal? I think that they did the right thing because they handed over information about a suspect. In America, I think that in the vast majority of cases, if you have information pertaining to a crime, handing over that information to the authorities is the good and right thing to do. This might not apply everywhere, but I think the courts are still relatively fair here, and the person will receive a trial that determines his guilt or innocence. The information provided by Google will be information presented in a trial, not information that might result in his disappearence in some other countries.
This guy may have broken the "law" but in reality he didn't actually steal anything, and to argue that no damage was done could be completely fair.
And it can also be argued that what he did was completely illegal, which is why we have the court system. Google provided information to the courts that will help in that determination.
If I remember correctly, Google has complied with Chinese laws on censorship and that's earned them a healthy amount of criticism.
If I remember correctly, a healthy amount of criticism does'nt translate to being evil either.
Did you read my post, or just pick out a few key phrases? I never compared the action of the individual to mugging, I compared YouTube's actions to the actions of someone witnessing a mugging. If you see a crime and are given a subpeona to testify about the information you know, are you being evil? I'm not even saying anything about whether or not the guy is guilty of the crime, because that isn't for me to decide.
A guy put some movies someone could already have recorded like ten years ago on a website that only diffuses it in a crappy quality ?
Besides my post, did you even read the summary, much less the article? He posted an unaired episode of 24. I don't care much about the other stuff, but if you are going to put up something that hasn't even been aired on TV yet, that's different.
Fine. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of that. I think you'll agree, along with most people, that spreading a TV program without the owners consent before that program is scheduled to be aired is and should be illegal. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, Google and YouTube gave information that will help law enforcement track down a suspect (notice a call him a suspect, because he is innocent until proven guilty). Whether or not that information leads to the correct person or the prosecution successfully convicts the man is a different story. With that said, I think that what Google and YouTube did was not evil, and we really didn't have to get into copyright at all.
Whoa, I never said anything about how these people should be punished or whether or not they should be punished at all, I was just comparing it to being evidence in a case. Just because the police have an eyewitness to a mugging doesn't mean that the eyewitness is right anymore than YouTube handing over user information means that the person related to the account actually committed the crime. This was about whether or not it is "evil" to hand over information relating to a crime. I'm not sure how you took a comparison between being a witness to a mugging and being a witness to copyright infringement (indirectly through your records) as being in any way related to punishing speeders with the death penalty.
RRRRRight. So let's say you see a guy get robbed in the street and can identify the robber. The police find out you witnessed the robbery and subpeona you to appear as a witness. Are you evil for giving up the identity of the robber?
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that whoever uploaded this video early was breaking some law or another. How is it evil to turn him in, especially if your it states in your privacy policy that you will comply with law enforcement? If they had refused to hand over the information, we'd probably be getting people complaining about how Google is aiding and concealing criminals.
A sarcastic "Don't be evil" is not an insightful (much less thoughtful, intelligent, or unique) response to every single action Google takes for the rest of eternity.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, we really aren't getting anywhere, but who cares. I won't be offended or think that I won the argument if you decide this is a waste of your time, but I'm enjoying it so I'm going to continue. The problem with that last theory is two fold. First, in most games, you really aren't worried about surviving at the start. You may be really weak in the beginning, but monsters are even weaker. You have to really work to die in the beginning, or just be a complete idiot. The other problem is that being a level 30 character in a level 1 world is just an arbitrary redefinition of levels. That is no different from starting at level 1 and fighting characters who are significantly weaker than you are. You are just starting at level 30 and fighting level 1 creatures, who are significantly weaker than you are. It's not exactly the same thing, but the essence of it is.
My starting assumption is that any other system of levels is basically the same as a system where you start at level 1. The assumption that fighting enemies that are much weaker than you is pointless was given to support that claim by contradicting a counter claim. It isn't always the case, so I admit it's not the best counter, but I think you'll agree that it holds true in most cases.
Again, I fail to see how your example provides any counter to my claim, especially since the LOTR example is close to my example with characters who start off at different strengths but in different areas. Let's say we use this LOTR example in which you can play the game as any of the characters you mentioned. Now let's say you split that game up into 3 games, one for each character. In each of those three games, you start off as the weakest character possible. We can combine the games together to make the original game, but you still start off as the weakest character for each path of the game. Any games can be combined in this fashion to create a game in which some characters are stronger, which fits you example. However, the characters are still weak in their respective paths so it isn't any different from starting at level 0.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible to make something different from the norm, I'm saying that there is a certain formula and that every RPG is analogous to that (I think that if they weren't, they'd no longer be an RPG).
Think of it like a straight line on a graph. We can move that line, but it's basically the same line except for where it meets the axes. We can move the origin wherever we want, but the slope of that line will never change. I think this is basically what I'm trying to say. It doesn't matter how strong you are at the start, the game progresses from the start so you must start as the (relatively) weakest character.
But that's the thing, it doesn't matter where you start, because you are always a nobody compared to the people you will have to fight. Given any game, you can always come up with a way to start off weaker than you did. In the Suikoden series, you actually fought flies at low levels (and stronger flies later, but that's not really the point). Taking that as an example, nearly every other game starts you off as a bad ass compared to Suikoden. Furthermore, most RPGs don't start you off as an outcast loser, they start you off as an untrained individual who also happens to have the potential to save the world or is the only person on the planet with some special power.
I understand the motivation that makes developers start you off at a low level, but that really isn't important to my argument because I'm taking a step away and trying to show that it isn't really possible to do it any other way. It's not so much that it isn't possible, but that doing it any other way is just a small transformation that is essentially the same thing. If any game can start you off at a lower or higher level (combine that with some of my other arguments that I don't want to repeat to be redundant), then the idea of starting off as the weakest character isn't valid. There are a few games where you can start and play a few different characters. Some of these characters are stronger, but they all start off in different areas, so they start off fighting different monsters. Since you don't meet up with the other characters until you play each character for a certain amount of time, which usually means more time for the weaker characters and less for the strong, they all tend to have the same level once they meet. This really cancels out the point that they started at different levels, since it is analogous to starting at level 1 for their respective areas, and then some levelling more quickly than others. I think that any other scenario that anyone can come up with is just a minor transformation on the "start at level one" theme, so wanting something different is just asking for the same thing... sort of.
I had read all of your post before replying. I am familiar with Dragon Quest / Dragon Warrior games with slimes, and yes, they are directly comparable to the rats, etc. Before I respond to the rest of the post, I'm going to explain why your original post wasn't ontopic.
First, you gave information about three of the games I mentioned in what seemed to be an attempt to counter my point. You explained that, contrary to my initial statement, bunnies existed in the game, and then went to clarify that you never fought them, which was part of my initial statement. It was very clear what you were doing. In essence, you said nothing new, yet were somehow attempting to correct me. Not that I have a problem with being corrected, if I say something incorrect.
You then went on to talk about how the presence of bunnies or other small animals does not dictate whether the game is good or bad. No one claimed that it did. This is like walking in to a conversation where two people are arguing about who spends more: Democrats or Republicans. Then you say, "Who cares, they are all crooks." Whether or not that is true doesn't matter one bit because it doesn't answer the intial question, and no one claimed that it wasn't true. It was never claimed that there is some correlation between the use of bunnies and the quality of the game. In fact, in some of the examples, I listed games that broke the rule but were really bad (at least IMO, Auto Assault was horrible). It's not that I don't agree with you, but I'm sorry, your statement wasn't relevant.
And how is that very different from starting at level one and controlling a bunch of creatures that are weaker than you? It's not quite the same because your idea sounds like it would contain some different gameplay, but the level idea is the still there. Instead of controlling weaker creatures, you are controlling weaker characters who could have potentially been your character, even though you aren't able to actually play and start at their level. Arbitrarily designating levels doesn't change the fact that you start at some level.
that has nothing to do with what we were talking about, try reading a couple more posts above the one you replied to
That's kinda my point, if the where you start is arbitrary, why do most RPGs start you at the same place? It's like level 1 was defined by the RPG gods as kill rats, bunnies and snakes (little ones), and no developer dare break that commandment.
In that case, I agree with you that it's kinda irritating to fight the same monsters at the start of every game. However, if we look at most RPGs, we pretty much fight the same types of monsters throughout the game. How many RPGs don't have any dragons in them? But if we look harder, we can find a lot of games that break away from the norm. Auto Assault, for example, is an MMORPG really far from the norm. There aren't rats or bunnies in Disgaea 2. Some of the space RPGs have rats, but you aren't gonna see any bunnies or snakes in those. I think XenoSaga and the DotHack games are rat and bunny free. I'm not saying that most games don't start you off fighting rats and bunnies, but there are still a lot of games that have other monsters in the beginning. I think that's one of those things that since we think it happens a lot, we notice it a lot and assume it happens more than it actually does. Kinda like people who believe psychics or think that the number 47 appears more frequently than most others (I went to Pomona College where they talked about that a lot). And don't get me wrong, I fall into that trap sometimes just like everybody else.
But in general most games have you start off in the same place... pretty damn helpless. Why must I be somebody challenged in a toe-to-toe fight with a rat or bunny (non-vorpal type)? Can't I start off as an average or even above average fighter, and progress to deity from there?
Ok, let me give such an example. Let's say I make a game where you play as the strongest man on earth, who somehow is now able to battle Gods and steal their powers or something to gain levels. Now you're far better than the average human, but since you are only fighting Gods in the game, it's really like you are the lowest level again. So let's instead say that you are this man but the game starts after you've already defeated half the Gods, so you have their power and are stronger than all of those you defeated. The game starts and you begin to fight the stronger Gods, so again, you are the weakest of all the Gods you fight in the game.
The point is, your level is determined by the set of monsters you fight. You will always start out at the weakest level possible that still allows you to beat the lowest enemies because if you started out with average strength compared to the set of monsters, there'd be no point in including most of the weaker monsters in the game. On the other hand, if your only complaint is that you don't like fighting monsters like bunnies and rats, then its completely reasonable to say that there should be a game where you start out fighting skeletons and zombies. Of course, after playing a couple games where you start off as average, you'd want to start out stronger... and the cycle continues. (again, not really directed at you personally)
Yes, you're absolutely right, and that's why we can't compare RPGs to FPSs in many ways. I don't agree with saying that RPGs are an exercise in passing time unless you think reading is an exercise in passing time, and if you think that, then I can pretty easily argue that everything is an exercise in passing time. Just because you aren't perfecting a "skill" that is easily observable (like in FPSs), doesn't mean that you are just passing time.
But as for the the start of your response, you're right about the skill part in RPGs, and that definitely makes it hard for them to start you at a higher "level". I think that pretty much supports my idea that you can't start higher levels. Even if they start you with more items, skills, and weapons, that's still the start, so its the lowest level in the game. If we start off with too much stuff, then there isn't much point in playing.
Good question. I totally understand your relation, and you probably realize the differences I'm about to state, but I'm gonna say them anyway.
The Labors of Hercules: 12 labors, most of them pretty direct (as in, he goes and gets the object instead of needing a dozen things before he can get the object)
Auto Assault: I couldn't find an exact number of quests, but I found one site that listed 120 quests. Of the 120, 111 were levels 1-9, 8 were 10-20, and one was 20+. From playing the game up to about level 25, I think that there were fewer quests as you gained levels, but not a big difference. I thinks it's a pretty safe bet to say that there are an average of 70 quests for every ten levels, and with 80 possible levels, that's 5600 quests. Considering that there are general as well as class and race specific quests, we'd have to cut that number way down, but I think there are at least a few hundred for any one character type. I don't think I fought more than 2 bosses to get to level 25 in all of the quests because 99% were go here, kill this, bring back item quests. At least Herc got to kill some fun at the end of each of his quests.
But seriously, the problem isn't that you are travelling somewhere to kill a monster that has an important item that is needed by a group of people or for you to do something else, the problem is that it is soooo much more unimaginative and repetitive than that. Let's look at Shadow of the Colossus as an example. The game can be summed up as "go here, kill this, return, repeat", but those actions are so much more involved. First you have to travel through a beautiful world to find the monster, then you have to figure out how to kill (usually involved solving a puzzle of how to climb the monster), then you get warped back to the start and find another monster. Contrast that with Auto Assault where the only real difference between the quests is the location of the monster, the name and shape of the monster, and the name of the person you talk to afterwards. However, after a few quests, all of those things just repeat so you aren't ever doing anything new. I'm not sure if that's still really clear on what I mean by "go here, kill this, return, repeat", but assume that I'm saying it in a monotonous, robotic tone, and that should get the idea across.
One could argue that MySpace is a carrier just like the telephone company is. MySpace is a gateway to information; it holds the information that you want other people to have. The argument is obviously much more in depth than that, and I'm really not saying that I think MySpace is a carrier, but I'm not sure that it isn't.
I am sure that MySpace should not be the same as your pool in your backyard. You don't see why virtual spaces should be exempt from the same kind of regulation? How about because they aren't the same as your pool? They're virtual, not physical. There may be some similarities between your pool and MySpace (even though I think most of those similarities are a stretch), but there are definitely some fundamental differences between the two. You can die in your pool, but you can't die on MySpace. There's a slim chance that someone you meet on MySpace may hurt you, but you can meet that same person on the way home from school or at a local park. Things on the internet are not the same as things in the real world. Virtual is not the same as physical. Just because some people can't tell the difference between the two doesn't mean that they are the same.
And I find it bitterly amusing that the same Slashdot community who wants to put the blame on the parents in this case - raises a huge outcry whenever someone floats the idea of logging software as limiting the rights of the child.
That's a bullshit statement. You can be against logging software but still think that parents should take care of their kids because using logging software is not the only way to do it. In reverse, logging software does not ensure that you are protecting your kids. One is not exclusive of the other. I put the blame on parents because they should be teaching their kids that people on the internet aren't always truthful and that they should never try to meet someone on the internet without talking to the parents about it. If I have kids and one of them meets someone on MySpace, I'll definitely take them to meet the person at some diner or public place (and I'll go in with them of course), because if that person is some scary child molester, you better believe that my kid won't try to go off and meet up with the next person by him/herself. That's getting offtopic though. It isn't that most slashdotters think that parent's don't have a right to monitor their kids, its that most of us don't think that that is the best answer. I think that treating your kids with respect and honestly explaining how things work is the best way to protect them.
Furthermore, why do we need to blame anyone other than the 19 year old guy who lied about his age? I mean, it's fine to spread the blame around because I'm sure that other people involved could have done better, but all this happened because of that 19 year old, not because of MySpace or the parents. Nobody ever likes to hear it, but shit happens. It doesn't matter what parents, teachers, police, businesses, or governments do, there will always be child molesters (unless we go to some real extreme where everyone is in a coma for the rest of their lives, but even then I think they'd find a way). It's fine to try and prevent it from happening again, but rational people should be able to reach a point where they can say, "I'm reasonably safe. I recognize that I can be hurt at any time, but I'm relatively safe." We keep getting safer and safer yet more and more scared.
I can see how a lot of people might not like that, but I think that is exactly why people who enjoy RPGs play them. That's why I play them at least. If I find a flash game online that lets me build levels and get stronger (remember Odell Down Under? where you're a fish that grows bigger?), I'll play for a couple hours. I enjoy that kind of thing. I think that they put franchise mode in sports games for people like me. We like the progression. I think the more important points of the article were the ones talking about the tedium of how to progress. His FFXII example was right on the mark. I played FFXII for 127 hours before I finally gave up trying to complete it and just beat it. I bet that the majority of that time was spent walking. A little bit of walking is fine, but when it takes 30 minutes to get somewhere (because it just takes that long to move, not because it's a challenge), that's pretty damn frustrating. I do agree with you about the "getting lost books" part, because it seems like so many quests in games, especially MMORPGs, are just "go here, kill this, pick up item, return".
As for the "Most RPGs start you off unimaginatively at the absolute lowest level" statement, that's really not fair, and I don't think it's true. One reason, assuming that a game involves gaining levels, you have to start at some level. Regardless of what that level is, it's the absolute lowest level. I mean, you can't start at a higher level or else that would be the new absolute lowest level. Another reason looks at it from a different perspective in that if you take any game, its reasonable to say that the character could have started off weaker. By that I mean that given any first character with some starting abilities and statistics, you can always make those abilities weaker, even if you have to go into negative values, so you never start at the absolute lowest level. From those reasons, I think that either every game must start at the absolute lowest level, so the absolute lowest level is meaningless, or you can always start at a lower level, so there is no absolute lowest level.
As I've said a few times now, I never said he stole anything. I was comparing YouTube turning over identifying information for a subpeona to a witness giving testimony about a mugging suspect's identity. Nowhere did I saw that the man stole anything.
Fair enough. Just to explain what the way I saw things one more time: #2 missed my point about being a witness and instead focused on the difference between the two crimes, which I saw as being irrelevant (which isn't always the case, but I didn't think it was important for my example). I saw #3 clarify my point by saying that it wasn't about which crime is more right or wrong, but that they were both crimes so the witness would be doing the right thing by reporting any information about it. Now I see where you were coming from, and I don't disagree with it; I just saw it from a different perspective.
Anyway, given how many posts get "yes, no, maybe" as tags, do you think it's unreasonable to have "donoevil" as a tag on a subject where some people think Google has done something bad?
Now that's a tough one. Normally, I'd say that's completely reasonable. However, with the way people look at the "Do no evil" motto, it seems like everything that has to do with Google would have a "donoevil" tag. I'd bet that if we looked at every story that had to do with Google over the last 6 months, 99% would have a comment about how the story shows Google is doing evil. Furthermore, the vast majority of those Google stories would have a whole argument about whether or not Google is doing evil. I don't follow the tags much, so I'm not sure if that answered your question in relation to the "yes, no, maybe" tags, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that question.
If you just look at that statement, then you're absolutely right, but you're taking it out of context. The original post (mine) was about comparing the difference between being a witness of one crime or another. The first reply confused this with equating the two crimes to be equal on a moral level (sharing common moral space). Then the "common moral space in that they are both against the law" quote came into play, which in my opinion, was intended to point that the two crimes were being compared because they were both against the law, not because they are equally wrong in people's eyes. I know this is all typed instead of being a conversation, but if you took those comments and made them a spoken conversation, I don't think there would be so much confusion.
Most libraries get their funding from a combination federal, state, and local governments. Which one gets to make the laws? Furthermore, the government is supposed to work for the people. If different people want to use their libraries in different ways, the government shouldn't prevent that but should instead allow each library to create its own policy that meets the needs of the community.
I'm not saying that it isn't appropriate for a state (or other government) to make a law that determines the legitimate purposes of the library, I'm just saying that that isn't always the case, and in this case, I don't think it is the state's place to step in.
It isn't that you took the person's comment in the way that he or she said it, it's that you failed to take the comment in the context that it was given. I didn't have much trouble understanding the person after reading the comments that led to it, but maybe that's just because what the person said related to my original post so I had a jump on knowing the train of thought. It seemed like you jumped into a thread and commented on one post without taking the context into consideration. Kinda like walking into a room just as someone is saying "so yeah, I had sex with my sister" and then telling them that incest is wrong and they need to get help, when that was actually just a punchline to a dirty joke.
And the criticism mentioned is criticism for doing evil.. not directly equal to actually being evil but it's a clear relation
Exactly, I knew that just as much as the GP should have known that I wasn't equating following the law to doing the morally right thing. That really isn't the point though.
For a different question, can you point out a part in my original post (or my second post with the exception to quoting you and responding to it) where I used the word copyright? I really don't see this as being a copyright issue, and I'm not even sure if the only charge here is copyright infringement. He uploaded an episode of a TV show before it was aired on television. Let's just look at that and forget about anything else he might have done. Do you think what he did is legal? Do you think it is legal to leak an episode of a show before it is broadcast? Do you think that what he did was good? I think that what he did was both wrong and illegal and that opinion has nothing to do with copyright.
since the courts (by definition) follow the law, and the law in this case is evil.
That's really not how it works, and there is no part of the definition of courts that say they must follow the law. Judges are allowed to do a lot of things in a court case, and at many times judges make the law by setting down precedents.
Can we try not to pick apart speech so much and maybe give people a little benefit of the doubt? MightyYar seemed to be talking about whether the two crimes are equally "bad". Dave seemed to be making the point that regardless of which is worse, they are both against the law. Then you just took his wording as an opportunity to show that you know the definition of morality. I'm sorry, I just don't see how an inability to read between the lines makes you insightful. Seems to me that that's pretty much the opposite.
Ok, you're giving a hypothetical situation in which many of the same rules do not apply. That's kinda like comparing two different science experiments, but saying that one of them was done in a world where some of the rules of physics are reversed. It kinda ruins the comparison.
This happened in the US and presumably the man will be tried here, so I was running under the assumption that it will be under a relatively fair court. I took a situation and changed a couple variables to illustrate a point. If you want to change more variables, you can find a variety of "correct" answers to the situation but you'll also find that those answers aren't as applicable. If you think that the man will be tried in courts that resemble some totalitarian regime, that's fine, but then we aren't talking about the same thing anymore. To illustrate this point, what if we take your situation, but change it a little so the guy you see jaywalking is actually a mass murdered who you saw kill your family and ten thousand other people but beat the case, are you evil for giving this guy up on the jaywalking charge? I'm not saying I don't agree with your hypothetical situation, I'm just saying that I don't think it is closely related to the subject anymore than my mass murderer scenario is related to yours.
It's been said before, but good and evil are not the same as legal and illegal.
Can you point out the part of my post that said good and evil were the same as legal and illegal? I think that they did the right thing because they handed over information about a suspect. In America, I think that in the vast majority of cases, if you have information pertaining to a crime, handing over that information to the authorities is the good and right thing to do. This might not apply everywhere, but I think the courts are still relatively fair here, and the person will receive a trial that determines his guilt or innocence. The information provided by Google will be information presented in a trial, not information that might result in his disappearence in some other countries.
This guy may have broken the "law" but in reality he didn't actually steal anything, and to argue that no damage was done could be completely fair. And it can also be argued that what he did was completely illegal, which is why we have the court system. Google provided information to the courts that will help in that determination.
If I remember correctly, Google has complied with Chinese laws on censorship and that's earned them a healthy amount of criticism.
If I remember correctly, a healthy amount of criticism does'nt translate to being evil either.
Did you read my post, or just pick out a few key phrases? I never compared the action of the individual to mugging, I compared YouTube's actions to the actions of someone witnessing a mugging. If you see a crime and are given a subpeona to testify about the information you know, are you being evil? I'm not even saying anything about whether or not the guy is guilty of the crime, because that isn't for me to decide.
A guy put some movies someone could already have recorded like ten years ago on a website that only diffuses it in a crappy quality ?
Besides my post, did you even read the summary, much less the article? He posted an unaired episode of 24. I don't care much about the other stuff, but if you are going to put up something that hasn't even been aired on TV yet, that's different.
Fine. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of that. I think you'll agree, along with most people, that spreading a TV program without the owners consent before that program is scheduled to be aired is and should be illegal. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, Google and YouTube gave information that will help law enforcement track down a suspect (notice a call him a suspect, because he is innocent until proven guilty). Whether or not that information leads to the correct person or the prosecution successfully convicts the man is a different story. With that said, I think that what Google and YouTube did was not evil, and we really didn't have to get into copyright at all.
Whoa, I never said anything about how these people should be punished or whether or not they should be punished at all, I was just comparing it to being evidence in a case. Just because the police have an eyewitness to a mugging doesn't mean that the eyewitness is right anymore than YouTube handing over user information means that the person related to the account actually committed the crime. This was about whether or not it is "evil" to hand over information relating to a crime. I'm not sure how you took a comparison between being a witness to a mugging and being a witness to copyright infringement (indirectly through your records) as being in any way related to punishing speeders with the death penalty.
RRRRRight. So let's say you see a guy get robbed in the street and can identify the robber. The police find out you witnessed the robbery and subpeona you to appear as a witness. Are you evil for giving up the identity of the robber?
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that whoever uploaded this video early was breaking some law or another. How is it evil to turn him in, especially if your it states in your privacy policy that you will comply with law enforcement? If they had refused to hand over the information, we'd probably be getting people complaining about how Google is aiding and concealing criminals.
A sarcastic "Don't be evil" is not an insightful (much less thoughtful, intelligent, or unique) response to every single action Google takes for the rest of eternity.