My point is that the business model employed by the game encourages the developers to spread a minimum of content over a maximum of time (hence the constant rat-pellet analogies), whereas in a game NOT fueled by monthly subscriptions collected from users (many of whom play for years), the business model encourages developers to make games with a maximum of content in an appropriately-sized length of time.
My point is that I played WoW, and I quit because it was boring. I think there are other people who have had a similar experience, and I think that they can relate to this proposed causation.
The flaw with WoW is that advancement of your character has no ultimate goal other than sheer advancement: there's a huge ladder of experience and items, and you invest time in making your character better, so he can be better at getting better, for hundreds of hours, until (maybe by the time you die) you're the best.
WoW is fun for a bit, but the action is repetitive, the quest is long, and there is never an end in sight. I would much rather play a game for 40 hours, and have a complete beginning-to-end experience, than run on that hamster wheel. Some of the quests in WoW are so repetitious and boring (and transparently designed to keep you playing for as long as possible) that they literally amount to killing the same type of monster, over and over, trying to get one to drop an item that has a 0.5% chance of spawning.
All MMOG's have features like this. You're just not always doing something fun, and whatever you do to advance in the game takes FOREVER. Games of other genres, like FPS's, RTS's, and single-player RPGs, put forth challenging, dynamic, fun games that are tests of skill, and not meaningless hamster wheels that keep the players occupied while they continue to make the designers rich with their monthly payments.
Not everyone who plays the game plays for 8 hours/day. That should be obvious.
I quit at level 42. It started to seem as though I was getting better so I could get better at getting better, and that was boring. I'd rather play a game that's more skill-based, and less of a time investment.
It's only dead if you think that "the little guy" never makes and uploads anything interesting.
While it's more profitable for a large corporation to police copyright violations (so people are forced to get their daily dose of the Stewart on their network, for example), for independent filmmakers, machinima artists, and small-time.com's, having material on YouTube is an asset; it makes people aware of the fact that they're out there, making things. It builds a fanbase, and that's important to them -- unless they're complete marketing n00bs, they won't request for their content to be taken down.
And besides, home videos of cats flushing toilets are pretty funny.
From the article: "Rentacoder gives you the illusion that the arbitrators are qualified to make decisions in regarding complex issues. This in not correct whatsoever, and you are slave the people, that have had the title of arbitrator given to them"
OMG! We are slave the people!
On a serious note, maybe instead of arbitrators, we need Arbiters.
The Judicators are clearly the right men aliens for the job.
What's really going to piss off a lot of Warcraft fans is that the new elves look nothing like the old elves, and the Blood Elves aren't new to World of Warcraft. In Warcraft III, they did, in fact, look like pansies.
But they were totally badass anyway. I can't believe people are so insecure about their badassery that they were concerned with the muscles of their online avatars.
"I don't think the legalization of drugs would magically stop dark alleys in bad neighborhoods."
No, but, (and I quote this from my previous post), "You'd never have to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood to meet a shifty pusher"
"Drugs are sold poisioned every day. If drugs were legalized, we would now have the legal form and illegal form on the streets."
Why would anyone buy drugs second-hand from a dubious source when they could buy them guaranteed-clean at the supermarket? It's not as if poison is somehow perceived as a quality enhancer, and people do prefer to know what they're buying -- nobody wants to, say, buy some improperly prepared cocaine and die that night.
"How is legalizing drugs going to magically increase education or help any more (education is not illegal)?"
I've only suggested that education about drugs is the proper solution to abuse (instead of criminalization), not that it isn't already in place to some degree. There are some people out there who will abuse anything you legalize -- Alcoholics Anonymous, anyone? How about that rehab clinic that opened up for video game players? And honestly, a lot of drug education isn't straightforward or honest at all, and kids can tell when you're talking down to them. Scruff Mcgruff? Dare to keep kids off drugs? Please.
"I know a way to stop lung-cancer. STOP SMOKING. It's just that fucking simple."
You're right, but, no one is going to. Aside from the millions (billions, maybe) who smoke tobacco, the website that spawned this whole discussion suggests that 162 million people smoke Marijuana. And how about all those alcoholics? You know, if they wanted to stop liver disease and depression, they should just STOP DRINKING. Come on, it's gotta be easy, right?
"The argument against marijuana is that it makes you lazy and eventually depressed."
Can you really establish causation for that? Or is it just the case that people who are more prone to laziness and depression are also more prone to the abuse of pleasure-seeking activities like smoking Marijuana?
Alcohol. Tobacco. Both of these are (in most nations) legal substances: they're also self-destructive and addictive.
These nations (the U.S. in particular) still continue to spend billions of dollars keeping minors off of them. They're also illegal for minors to use.
What, pray tell, is the difference between these substances and other, prohibited, substances? And why can't we legalize drug use while still prohibiting children from using, in the same way that we do with Alcohol?
Drug prohibition did not prevent that fathers' daughter from trying cocaine, because the drug was still there to try, and it will always be there to try, regardless of whether it is sold in backalleys or bars. The best thing he could have done to help his daughter would have been to have had serious, honest, heart-to-heart talk with her about drugs -- early in life, and more than once. Only a parent can truly prevent self-destructive behavior.
The fact of the matter is that drug prohibition will always increase crime. All you have to do to prove that to yourself is consider the rise in organized crime when the U.S. attempted to prohibit alcohol.
It's much better to legalize and educate. If drugs were legalized, the risks associated with taking them would be greatly diminished. You'd never be sold poisoned or impure drugs because they'd be sold by federally-regulated businesses instead of disorganized, irresponsible slangers. You'd never have to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood to meet a shifty pusher, risking your own personal safety. Criminals (the dangerous, violent kind) would never profit from drug trafficking because there would no longer BE a profit -- the only people making money would be law-abiding businessmen.
One of the arguments against Marijuana is that it causes lung cancer (supposedly much moreso than nicotine). But if Marijuana were legalized it would be much easier to purchase the drug in ingestible forms (brownies, anyone?), totally nullifying any risk of lung cancer. Legalization of Marijuana would IMPROVE public health by making safer alternatives more accessible to those who desired them.
There would be other benefits, too. Taxes on drugs would increase state revenue. Money wasted on prosecuting drug-related crimes would be better utilized. Law Enforcement officers would be able to spend their time preventing real crimes -- like murder.
Drug addiction is a terrible, destructive thing that ruins lives -- but drug addiction and drug use are DIFFERENT. Preventing the responsible use of intoxicants by adults who are fully aware of the consequences is a poor way to prevent drug addiction. History has shown us that people will continue to intoxicate themselves even when it is not legal to do so -- prohibition just puts these people at greater, unnecessary risk, and wastes our money in order to do so.
You have to consider that if governments knew they could get a lot of information about people's personal lives by using a false pretext, such as hunting for child pornographers (or "terrorists"), they probably would, regardless of their actual intentions. Once the information is in their hands, they're free to abuse it however they want.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that the business model employed by the game encourages the developers to spread a minimum of content over a maximum of time (hence the constant rat-pellet analogies), whereas in a game NOT fueled by monthly subscriptions collected from users (many of whom play for years), the business model encourages developers to make games with a maximum of content in an appropriately-sized length of time.
My point is that I played WoW, and I quit because it was boring. I think there are other people who have had a similar experience, and I think that they can relate to this proposed causation.
The flaw with WoW is that advancement of your character has no ultimate goal other than sheer advancement: there's a huge ladder of experience and items, and you invest time in making your character better, so he can be better at getting better, for hundreds of hours, until (maybe by the time you die) you're the best.
WoW is fun for a bit, but the action is repetitive, the quest is long, and there is never an end in sight. I would much rather play a game for 40 hours, and have a complete beginning-to-end experience, than run on that hamster wheel. Some of the quests in WoW are so repetitious and boring (and transparently designed to keep you playing for as long as possible) that they literally amount to killing the same type of monster, over and over, trying to get one to drop an item that has a 0.5% chance of spawning.
All MMOG's have features like this. You're just not always doing something fun, and whatever you do to advance in the game takes FOREVER. Games of other genres, like FPS's, RTS's, and single-player RPGs, put forth challenging, dynamic, fun games that are tests of skill, and not meaningless hamster wheels that keep the players occupied while they continue to make the designers rich with their monthly payments.
The robot also has a speaker to warn the intruder to surrender or get a perfect headshot.
Robot: "Head shot. Head shot. Ultra Kill!"
Why did this get 4, interesting when it was clearly 5, funny?
Games are just that, entertainment. You may learn somethings, but its no substitute for real life.
No substitute for real life!? Oh fuck, I wish someone had told me this earlier. And to think of all the time that I've wasted.
Nobody's gonna call you out for hating
Looks like you're Nobody?
That was a copy+pasta goof of epic proportions. This is what I meant to share.
You have AIDS, yes you have AIDS, not HIV but fulll bloowwwnnnn AIIDSSS
Here's some background on Marijuana criminalization.
I'm going to use this research as the factual evidence supporting a new health program that you can buy for only $19.95 call now
"Live Longer: Reduce your Core Temperature by Not Exercising!"
Not everyone who plays the game plays for 8 hours/day. That should be obvious.
I quit at level 42. It started to seem as though I was getting better so I could get better at getting better, and that was boring. I'd rather play a game that's more skill-based, and less of a time investment.
Will it come packaged with a WWE game?
My first thought when reading this was of all the people I know who have thrown a game controller in frustration.
I hate it when people do that.
Rational argument is wasted on irrationals. Use something less rational, more annoying, and more equivocative, like the following!
kz45 thinks that since fun makes people less productive, it is a danger to society!
"OMG NO MORE FUN JOO R ALL LZY DRUG ADDCTS"
"It seems like you take drugs daily (otherwise you wouldn't advocate this so much)"
You make a lot of self-righteous assumptions.
This was almost a Haiuku.
Are we not lucky?
They are very good with us.
Do you not feel loved?
Now we're in business.
It's only dead if you think that "the little guy" never makes and uploads anything interesting.
While it's more profitable for a large corporation to police copyright violations (so people are forced to get their daily dose of the Stewart on their network, for example), for independent filmmakers, machinima artists, and small-time .com's, having material on YouTube is an asset; it makes people aware of the fact that they're out there, making things. It builds a fanbase, and that's important to them -- unless they're complete marketing n00bs, they won't request for their content to be taken down.
And besides, home videos of cats flushing toilets are pretty funny.
From the article: "Rentacoder gives you the illusion that the arbitrators are qualified to make decisions in regarding complex issues. This in not correct whatsoever, and you are slave the people, that have had the title of arbitrator given to them"
OMG! We are slave the people!
On a serious note, maybe instead of arbitrators, we need Arbiters .
The Judicators are clearly the right men aliens for the job.
What's really going to piss off a lot of Warcraft fans is that the new elves look nothing like the old elves, and the Blood Elves aren't new to World of Warcraft. In Warcraft III, they did, in fact, look like pansies.
But they were totally badass anyway. I can't believe people are so insecure about their badassery that they were concerned with the muscles of their online avatars.
"I don't think the legalization of drugs would magically stop dark alleys in bad neighborhoods."
No, but, (and I quote this from my previous post), "You'd never have to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood to meet a shifty pusher"
"Drugs are sold poisioned every day. If drugs were legalized, we would now have the legal form and illegal form on the streets."
Why would anyone buy drugs second-hand from a dubious source when they could buy them guaranteed-clean at the supermarket? It's not as if poison is somehow perceived as a quality enhancer, and people do prefer to know what they're buying -- nobody wants to, say, buy some improperly prepared cocaine and die that night.
"How is legalizing drugs going to magically increase education or help any more (education is not illegal)?"
I've only suggested that education about drugs is the proper solution to abuse (instead of criminalization), not that it isn't already in place to some degree. There are some people out there who will abuse anything you legalize -- Alcoholics Anonymous, anyone? How about that rehab clinic that opened up for video game players? And honestly, a lot of drug education isn't straightforward or honest at all, and kids can tell when you're talking down to them. Scruff Mcgruff? Dare to keep kids off drugs? Please.
"I know a way to stop lung-cancer. STOP SMOKING. It's just that fucking simple."
You're right, but, no one is going to. Aside from the millions (billions, maybe) who smoke tobacco, the website that spawned this whole discussion suggests that 162 million people smoke Marijuana. And how about all those alcoholics? You know, if they wanted to stop liver disease and depression, they should just STOP DRINKING. Come on, it's gotta be easy, right?
"The argument against marijuana is that it makes you lazy and eventually depressed."
Can you really establish causation for that? Or is it just the case that people who are more prone to laziness and depression are also more prone to the abuse of pleasure-seeking activities like smoking Marijuana?
Alcohol. Tobacco. Both of these are (in most nations) legal substances: they're also self-destructive and addictive.
These nations (the U.S. in particular) still continue to spend billions of dollars keeping minors off of them. They're also illegal for minors to use.
What, pray tell, is the difference between these substances and other, prohibited, substances? And why can't we legalize drug use while still prohibiting children from using, in the same way that we do with Alcohol?
Drug prohibition did not prevent that fathers' daughter from trying cocaine, because the drug was still there to try, and it will always be there to try, regardless of whether it is sold in backalleys or bars. The best thing he could have done to help his daughter would have been to have had serious, honest, heart-to-heart talk with her about drugs -- early in life, and more than once. Only a parent can truly prevent self-destructive behavior.
The fact of the matter is that drug prohibition will always increase crime. All you have to do to prove that to yourself is consider the rise in organized crime when the U.S. attempted to prohibit alcohol.
It's much better to legalize and educate. If drugs were legalized, the risks associated with taking them would be greatly diminished. You'd never be sold poisoned or impure drugs because they'd be sold by federally-regulated businesses instead of disorganized, irresponsible slangers. You'd never have to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood to meet a shifty pusher, risking your own personal safety. Criminals (the dangerous, violent kind) would never profit from drug trafficking because there would no longer BE a profit -- the only people making money would be law-abiding businessmen.
One of the arguments against Marijuana is that it causes lung cancer (supposedly much moreso than nicotine). But if Marijuana were legalized it would be much easier to purchase the drug in ingestible forms (brownies, anyone?), totally nullifying any risk of lung cancer. Legalization of Marijuana would IMPROVE public health by making safer alternatives more accessible to those who desired them.
There would be other benefits, too. Taxes on drugs would increase state revenue. Money wasted on prosecuting drug-related crimes would be better utilized. Law Enforcement officers would be able to spend their time preventing real crimes -- like murder.
Drug addiction is a terrible, destructive thing that ruins lives -- but drug addiction and drug use are DIFFERENT. Preventing the responsible use of intoxicants by adults who are fully aware of the consequences is a poor way to prevent drug addiction. History has shown us that people will continue to intoxicate themselves even when it is not legal to do so -- prohibition just puts these people at greater, unnecessary risk, and wastes our money in order to do so.
I, for one, welcome our new super-strong extraterrestrial caped-crusading overlord.
Did they foil the fencers?
Play nice, now.
You have to consider that if governments knew they could get a lot of information about people's personal lives by using a false pretext, such as hunting for child pornographers (or "terrorists"), they probably would, regardless of their actual intentions. Once the information is in their hands, they're free to abuse it however they want.