I guess I just don't realize how that equates to harder difficulty when something like HL2's introduction of harder enemies does not constitute an increase in required skill. For instance, the strider fight in HL2 in the courtyard is very difficult, especially on the harder difficulty levels. Much like pac-man, at it's basest level it required you to memorize where the strider came from, where the rocket reloads are, and the timing of the strider's weapon fire, but it's hardly something you can simply keep plugging away at and eventually come out victorious. Maybe you're just playing the newer games on a difficulty setting that is too low for the challenge you want.
The problem is that every game you mentioned as evidence that skill was rewarded instead of time spent playing doesn't actually require more skill. Take pacman for instance: as you said, every level is the same. The only thing that changes is the speed of the game. You're not rewarded for your skill at the game, you're rewarded for how well you memorize the game and that's a byproduct of playing it for long periods of time.
I don't understand why the judge, with the parents' consent, didn't simply take away his access to the internet, or a computer all together. It seems like it would be a much more applicable punishment for a crime that requires a computer to commit.
The media companies are definitely shooting themselves in the foot by limiting their next generation technology in such a way, but you have to remember that while the slashdot community is well aware of the threat the DRM possesses and the extent to which media companies will go to "protect" their IP (Sony rootkit anyone?), the average computer user is not.
Joe user isn't going to have to worry about this because he will more than likely aquire everything legally. If he wants to watch a HD-DVD, he'll go buy it and put it into his 64 bit copy of Vista and it'll play fine because it's all legal. Granted, you'll probably get the DRM error hiccup because it is Windows after all, but it still shouldn't hinder the ability to play HD content too badly.
This only affects you if you have to have to latest in technology and also downoad high def content that's protected. I'm not going to shell out for a 64 bit system that I can't use due to driver conflicts and is infested with DRM so I can watch movies that are higher quality. I have a tv for that and if I want to watch BR or HD, I'll buy a player and hook it up to my tv.
If nothing else this will turn people to watching movies on their tvs instead of their computers which may be exactly what the media companies had in mind all along.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're suggesting that some of the athletes were, in fact, undead.
I'd watch the Zombielympics. I hear the 100m shamble is always down to the wire.
I guess I just don't realize how that equates to harder difficulty when something like HL2's introduction of harder enemies does not constitute an increase in required skill. For instance, the strider fight in HL2 in the courtyard is very difficult, especially on the harder difficulty levels. Much like pac-man, at it's basest level it required you to memorize where the strider came from, where the rocket reloads are, and the timing of the strider's weapon fire, but it's hardly something you can simply keep plugging away at and eventually come out victorious. Maybe you're just playing the newer games on a difficulty setting that is too low for the challenge you want.
The problem is that every game you mentioned as evidence that skill was rewarded instead of time spent playing doesn't actually require more skill. Take pacman for instance: as you said, every level is the same. The only thing that changes is the speed of the game. You're not rewarded for your skill at the game, you're rewarded for how well you memorize the game and that's a byproduct of playing it for long periods of time.
I don't understand why the judge, with the parents' consent, didn't simply take away his access to the internet, or a computer all together. It seems like it would be a much more applicable punishment for a crime that requires a computer to commit.
Joe user isn't going to have to worry about this because he will more than likely aquire everything legally. If he wants to watch a HD-DVD, he'll go buy it and put it into his 64 bit copy of Vista and it'll play fine because it's all legal. Granted, you'll probably get the DRM error hiccup because it is Windows after all, but it still shouldn't hinder the ability to play HD content too badly.
This only affects you if you have to have to latest in technology and also downoad high def content that's protected. I'm not going to shell out for a 64 bit system that I can't use due to driver conflicts and is infested with DRM so I can watch movies that are higher quality. I have a tv for that and if I want to watch BR or HD, I'll buy a player and hook it up to my tv.
If nothing else this will turn people to watching movies on their tvs instead of their computers which may be exactly what the media companies had in mind all along.