Slashdot: A Gamer's Mainfesto

[stuffedmonkey]

Slashdot has a link up to an article detailing 20 things wrong with modern gaming. Some great quotes too...



http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/manifesto.html

[Lady Jaye]

Entertaining read, thanks for the link!

[Ed Oscuro]

did anyone stop being impressed by Doom III long enough to notice he and the other bad guys were flailing at us with the same straight-line Ulysses S. Grant calvary charge that failed them twelve years ago in Doom 1?
Heh, jumping the gun a little there.

Anyhow, I thought some of the game ideas given were great. We'll see; Sony hasn't said "hay guys, we specifically don't want you to make these kinds of games." The in-line = no large games comment doesn't mean that it's true. We'll still see some sprawling games (after all, Sony's developing one themselves for the PS2 called Colossus).

[kainemaxwell]

Very cool article!

Why isn't a there a spy game where we actually get to be a real spy rather than a hallway-roving kill machine? You know, where we actually have to talk to contacts and extract information and tap phones and piece together clues, a game full of exotic locales and deception and backstabbing and subplots? A game where a gun is used as often as a real spy would use it (that is, almost never)?
Wasn't like the last real spy-ish game Golgo 13 for the NES?

[zmweasel]

The most interesting bit of this overly profane and somewhat ignorant piece (game developers have raised many of these issues themseves, and discussed them with more insight and intelligence) is the graph that shows Nintendo's hardware sales from NES through GameCube, with a 10+ million drop-off for each new system:

http://johndiesattheend.com/ningraph.gif

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

I talked this article over with some friends from GameSpy Forums; we all agreed that the article missed some key points and possibilities, and seemed to expect developers to use bigger processors as a band-aid for commonplace problems of oversight, but then inexplicably divorced this from the other very real problem of content bloat.

For crates - well, none of us seemed too enthusaistic about Serious Sam's lazy floating weapons, and if you look at how crates have appeared in the Half-Life series, you'll see that Valve has been extending destructable properties to more items in environments, and this is simply taking appropriate steps towards a more destructible environment. This is a nice thing.

Many comments from this article seemed to display a lack of understanding about the limits of platforms over the ages, and the "but shinier" comment about in-line processors was totally wrong, especially if you took the time to read what was being said in the linked article. Sony themselves have created a number of games displaying vast spaces; their own Colossus, coming out for the PS2, is one such title. No. All that the in-line comments mean is that the developer believes that in-line processors are "cheaper by the dozen," and inherently less efficient than out-of-order processors. We'll see how well game developers deal with these issues, or how well they come into play.

The comment on the early 3D platformers being designed around gameplay, and newer ones being designed around graphics - well, I've only seen part of that picture as I didn't spend more than a few minutes with the Dreamcast Sonic title. Mario 64 is often held up as a shining example of tight control, but "2D gameplay experience" moniker rings hollow, however repeated it may be. Mario 64 is much more about exploration and 3D co-ordination skills than it is about bashing blocks, memorizing, or twitch gameplay.

The whole rant about feminism...well, that was ill-advised from my view and didn't serve much purpose.

[Promophile]

Where's the game where we're a castaway on a deserted island and the object of the game is to find food and clean water and build a shelter, a game where we can play for one month or six months, because whether or not we get rescued is randomized? Where every time we restart we get a different island with different wildlife and vegetation and water sources?


I remeber a article in nintendo power about a game like this. I think it was NES or SNES era, could possibly be a gameboy game. Anyone know what it is?


Why isn't a there a spy game where we actually get to be a real spy rather than a hallway-roving kill machine? You know, where we actually have to talk to contacts and extract information and tap phones and piece together clues, a game full of exotic locales and deception and backstabbing and subplots? A game where a gun is used as often as a real spy would use it (that is, almost never)?


There are games like this on the PC, and chances are 80 pct that there is a JP game like this. Theres no market for it in America because we want booms not plots.


"why do I not see any boobs in games" rant followed by "sexy games degrade women" rant

Last I heard you couldn't rant both sides of an argument. So this person is FOR nipples in games but AGAINST sexy women in games? Huh? My opinion has been the games with "sexay girlz" in them are mostly action/shooters/fighters, which are typically male dominated genres. You can't fault the developers for trying to please their fanbase. I also find it funny that he rants about DoA:XBV being really demeaning while It was my ex-GFs favorite game, and from what I've heard lots of girls love it.


Game makers: it doesn't have to be a jumping game for you to give the characters the basic ability to jump low obstacles that all humans have. And when I walk up to little ledges that are 10-inches off the ground, a ledge a toddler could crawl over, and you arbitrarily don't let me pass because it's not a jumping game, you remind me of what I'm really doing: playing a game. We're to the stage where it should be a minimum requirement in the game universe: rock should act like rock, air should act like air and humans should move like humans.


Ok I can totally agree with this here. Its one of my pet peves as well.


What if I don't feel any satisfaction in "unlocking" the game features I already paid real-life money for and just want to fucking race the Ferrari on the box art!


then use a damn cheat/cheat device. But really, 50pct of the fun in games with secrets/unlockables is unlocking all the junk.



...but for every one of those, there seem to be 30 games that are, for instance, set against the backdrop of a post-apocalyptic future.


Totally with the guy on this point. Its the reason I can't play most FPS games, they're all the same damn game.

[Ed Oscuro]

Why isn't a there a spy game where we actually get to be a real spy rather than a hallway-roving kill machine? You know, where we actually have to talk to contacts and extract information and tap phones and piece together clues, a game full of exotic locales and deception and backstabbing and subplots? A game where a gun is used as often as a real spy would use it (that is, almost never)?

There are games like this on the PC, and chances are 80 pct that there is a JP game like this. Theres no market for it in America because we want booms not plots.
?!
Splinter Cell is really the closest thing we have to this, so far. I'm a fan of Thief, the medieval-esque stealing game, and I'd play more like those. Surely there's room for a game like this where you play a station chief, say, but it would be costly, very costly, to develop right. Fact is, you won't find a game where you wait in some shitty eastern bloc car for half an hour for a surly GRU turncoat...and no, I don't think any games quite like this exist. Not even in Japan LOL



"why do I not see any boobs in games" rant followed by "sexy games degrade women" rant
Last I heard you couldn't rant both sides of an argument. So this person is FOR nipples in games but AGAINST sexy women in games? ... I also find it funny that he rants about DoA:XBV being really demeaning while It was my ex-GFs favorite game, and from what I've heard lots of girls love it.
My chest tightens whenever somebody starts spewing P.C. vitriol like a feminazi flamethrower, as I'm not quite sure whether to take is seriously or just laugh it off...but I'm certainly not going to be swayed by any sound bite style rants without substance. Sorta like watching debates on the news...eh



Game makers: it doesn't have to be a jumping game for you to give the characters the basic ability to jump low obstacles that all humans have.
Ok I can totally agree with this here. Its one of my pet peves as well.
Again, you guys are missing the point here. Game developers usually have mixed feelings getting rants like this, seeing that it took a great deal of work to get to the point where arbitrary limits are an issue.

What I noticed, and your notice above parallels that, is the fact that this writer is calling for more content, not less. Writing "just put a cliff there" makes you sound like an ass when everybody else suddenly realizes that not all ski trails are bordered on all sides by sheer drops or canyon walls - in fact, NONE are. You buy a skiing game to go skiing, and while developers certainly want to put replay value in they must first concentrate on the basic game; frankly, getting bounced off an invisible wall would be less annoying than having to restart because you wiped out in a snowbank or went out of bounds.



What if I don't feel any satisfaction in "unlocking" the game features I already paid real-life money for and just want to fucking race the Ferrari on the box art!

then use a damn cheat/cheat device. But really, 50pct of the fun in games with secrets/unlockables is unlocking all the junk.
Heh, I pretty much agree. This writer seems more like a casual gamer in that they simply wanna cruise around; for my part, it's nice to say that you developed some sense of how to play the game right, and got whatever. This shouldn't be an issue. Just make collecting stuff fun, if that's what you're aiming for as a design goal. Photographing everything in Wind Waker was NOT FUN, for a variety of reasons that were true of the game as well (i.e. lots and lots of repeated content as you go back through areas to get to that underground vault. Agh. This was true of traveling in the game in general, too, though less pronounced it kept me away from the action more than I'd like).

[Promophile]

Just make collecting stuff fun, if that's what you're aiming for as a design goal. Photographing everything in Wind Waker was NOT FUN

Another example would be scanning in Metroid Prime 2. Just played it recently and my god was it annoying having to scan every damn speck of dirt because I didn't want to miss any entries and make my whole playthrough meaningless since missing one scan means I wouldn't unlock an extra.

[thegreatescape]

Reading through the article, every time the author came up with a new beef, I could always think of a game that offered what the author wanted. Intelligent AI? Half Life marines. Want to start out with a powerful gun with lots of ammo? Halo.

Regarding point 12: Ive always thought of the media convergence complaint in a console to be a short sighted, (usually) nintendo fanboi deal. "The graph" would seem to be evidence of such.

[Promophile]

Regarding point 12: Ive always thought of the media convergence complaint in a console to be a short sighted, (usually) nintendo fanboi deal. "The graph" would seem to be evidence of such.

Some of us want a console system to be, suprisingly, a console, with nothing else getting in the way. This next gen is taking further steps to make consoles computers. Like the writer of this article I don't want to download game patches and pay for new levels in the games I own.

[calthaer]

Nintendo's failure to sell-through their consoles could be attributed to errors or conditions other than just their "games-only" console design (as opposed to multipurpose). For instance, the decision to stick with cartridges as opposed to optical media for N64 could explain its weakness, and carryover from the unpopularity of the N64 + super-kiddie image brought on by Wind Waker and other games could explain the GameCube's lack of popularity.

That, and the fact that each subsequent generation of game machines seems to last for a shorter time period than the one before it...

[pragmatic insanester]

as far as the deserted island game, there's one for the jpn ps1 called "deserted island". i own it but haven't played it yet. we also have my beloved "disaster report" for ps2,, but it doesn't really change every game aside from branching routes and events.

[Captain Wrong]

What if I don't feel any satisfaction in "unlocking" the game features I already paid real-life money for and just want to fucking race the Ferrari on the box art!

then use a damn cheat/cheat device. But really, 50pct of the fun in games with secrets/unlockables is unlocking all the junk.
Heh, I pretty much agree. This writer seems more like a casual gamer in that they simply wanna cruise around; for my part, it's nice to say that you developed some sense of how to play the game right, and got whatever. This shouldn't be an issue. Just make collecting stuff fun, if that's what you're aiming for as a design goal. Photographing everything in Wind Waker was NOT FUN, for a variety of reasons that were true of the game as well (i.e. lots and lots of repeated content as you go back through areas to get to that underground vault. Agh. This was true of traveling in the game in general, too, though less pronounced it kept me away from the action more than I'd like).

I wouldn't exactly consider myself a "casual" gamer, but this is one of the points I did agree with. Unlocking crap has always seemed to me like a carrot and stick way to extend a short game and is just lazy. I don't like the virtual treasure hunts too many games (3d platformers specifically) have become.

And I think the main point here is that these people show all this really cool stuff in screen shots and whatnot, then you have to jump through 12 different types of hoops to actually get the stuff. I don't have 80 hours to devote to a game just to get all the goodies the developer promised and I make no apologies for that. I shouldn't have to buy a cheat device to get all the features of a game. If it's listed in the advertising or on the packaging, it should be available from the get go, period.

[SoulBlazer]

Sure, there are PC spy games. Does'nt anyone remember Covert Action from Sid Mier? Or Spycraft? Or that game where you could actually get phone and e-mail clues?

[Ed Oscuro]

I wouldn't exactly consider myself a "casual" gamer, but this is one of the points I did agree with. Unlocking crap has always seemed to me like a carrot and stick way to extend a short game and is just lazy.
Yes, I see both sides of the argument...if you don't have tons of time to play a game, or if you simply just don't like feeling downgraded at the beginning, the carrot stick method is pretty lame. I also don't have nearly as much time to invest in regular console games and heck, even collecting junk in the GBA Castlevania games often irritates me by now.

This is a divisive issue really, and you're either for or against it, but it's one that's been driven into the ground before and wasn't really given the attention it deserved by the writer...along with most other points they made, in fact.

I still contend that unlockable stuff is great, just as long as you don't cripple gameplay by keeping the fastest, best-handling cars for last. Decals are one thing, but not that. Yeah. I agree with that. Still, we'll see more of this as developers worry about us burning through their content too fast... :S

[Captain Wrong]

I still contend that unlockable stuff is great, just as long as you don't cripple gameplay by keeping the fastest, best-handling cars for last. Decals are one thing, but not that. Yeah. I agree with that. Still, we'll see more of this as developers worry about us burning through their content too fast... :S

That I can agree with. Don't show me the BFG or the Ferarri on the cover and then stick me with the pea shooter or Pinto for most of them game. Unlocking the little things, I don't mind, but crippling the game just isn't fair.

[goatdan]

I read the article and found it to be interesting, although I didn't agree with a lot of it myself...


That I can agree with. Don't show me the BFG or the Ferarri on the cover and then stick me with the pea shooter or Pinto for most of them game. Unlocking the little things, I don't mind, but crippling the game just isn't fair.

I don't get it. The BFG was cool because it was hard to obtain, and it blew lots of crap up. If you started the game with the BFG as your main weapon, people would complain that the game was too easy and that it didn't have enough weapons.

Especially in FPS titles, advancing through the weapons makes a lot of sense, and putting the biggest, meanest and coolest looking weapons as the ones that it takes the longest to find and you can't use much is the only way they will seem neat. If you started the game with one of them, ending it with the same effects wouldn't seem so special.

As for the car thing, I wish that you could drive whatever you wanted in normal mode, but were stuck upgrading in challenge mode... which is what most racing games do anyways.

That all makes a lot of sense to me.

As for the "show me the nipples!" "stop whoring women!" rants in the article, I agree that if conducted properly, nudity in a game wouldn't be a bad thing -- but it would have to be done in much the same way as it is in the movies themselves, where it only happens after you are attached to the characters in some way.

As for the stopping whoring women thing, I agree that not enough women are portrayed in a good light, but calling attention to Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball was a bad example, as I have yet to see anything about that game that was "whoring" the women out. It was really tastefully done.

As for other series, yes some more tasteful women portrayals would be nice, but it seems as if they are listening (isn't that right, Lara Croft?) The author's assertion that just by reducing the dimensions of these characters, women would suddenly want to play the games just isn't right. It isn't like there are tons of games out there where you get to play as a normal, non-hunky dude either, and guys seem to be okay with that.

Why is it demoralizing to feature a nice looking female in a game, while it is perfectly acceptable to feature hunky guys. I will never look like Solid Snake (frankly, the mullet and me don't get along ;) ), but I don't feel that playing a game with a really buff looking spy is going to make me feel horrible about myself. But that double standard is a whole different issue.

I do agree with the loading comment, even though he stated the GameCube didn't have them in Nintendo games (hunh? Where did he get his games from?). I think that especially now with the built-in hard drive of the Xbox that loading times should be mostly removed if not entirely. I do understand why they happen (the Jaguar's cartridge medium had loading times), but at least working on reducing them would help.

I disagree about the save points needing to be everywhere. It depends on the game. Being able to save every few seconds in a game like Metroid Prime would take a lot of the challenge out of it. I actually am sort of disappointed with the Sonic Mega Collection because I find myself saving constantly and restoring if I'm hit by an enemy. Save / restore points in games like that actually work better at the end of levels in my opinion.

Well, anyway, it did have some interesting points -- much better than everything else that I read that was linked to by it!

[Lady Jaye]

GoatDan, I agree with your comment about save points. Look no further than the first 3 Super Mario Bros. games. Compare the NES version with the SNES version (where you could save anytime) to the GBA version. Every remake is easier than its previous incarnation (although in the case of the GBA remake, it's due to other factors aside from the savepoints).

[Ed Oscuro]

I still contend that unlockable stuff is great, just as long as you don't cripple gameplay by keeping the fastest, best-handling cars for last. Decals are one thing, but not that. Yeah. I agree with that. Still, we'll see more of this as developers worry about us burning through their content too fast... :S
That I can agree with. Don't show me the BFG or the Ferarri on the cover and then stick me with the pea shooter or Pinto for most of them game. Unlocking the little things, I don't mind, but crippling the game just isn't fair.
In all fairness, allowing players to handle the BFG from the start would throw the game's balance and challange way off, especially in Multiplayer. DOOM was incredibly contrived, but at least there was an excuse for throwing you into battle with just a pistol - your base had been taken over and you were quickly knee-deep in enemy territory. For most FPS games, though, the traditional picking guns up from dead enemies makes no sense.

Another area where the Splinter Cell games have done well. I can't get over the idea of this Fifth Echelon group making up foreign policy decisions on the fly and one guy managing to go through armies, but hey...it's fun.

[Captain Wrong]

OK you guys are right, I take back my BFG comment. Ealry morning, still waiting for the coffee to kick in. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it, damnit!!! LOL

However, I still stand by my point.

[Ed Oscuro]

Of course, I just like whittling down things to a pointless edge ;)

No disagreements here.

[bargora]

Well, they can give you a giant friggin' gun pretty early in the game if they just limit the amount of ammo lying around for it.

I'm playing Quake for the first time right now on my Saturn. I've got the nailgun, which shreds flesh quite efficiently, but there sure aren't many nails lying around to feed it. So it's mostly 2xshotgun at this point (about four levels into the first episode).

But to agree with the crotchety old doodz--treasure hunts are for kids.

And to disagree with the slashdot piece on one point--quicksaves are generally for lazy-ass no-skillz PC pussies. Not that I won't use 'em if they're there, but I'm not going to whine like a toddler at their mere absence. (I will reserve a cockpunch for game designers who both omit quicksaves and space out restart points by more than ten minutes, though.)

[goatdan]

That, and the fact that each subsequent generation of game machines seems to last for a shorter time period than the one before it...

I missed this point in my original thread...

It isn't that the game machines are lasting for a shorter period of time, it is that the increase in power is becoming less and less apparent. The console cycle has been about the same amount of time ever since the 2600 (and, it could be argued with more consoles coming out from smaller companies). The dominant console has been released on about a five year cycle ever since the NES:

1986 - NES
1991 - SNES (although the 1989 Genesis was pretty major too, obviously)
1995 - Playstation
2000 - Playstation 2
2005 / 6 - Xbox 2 / Playstation 3

This generation actually lasted the longest of any so far... it is just the power difference isn't noticable... and back between the NES and the PS2, a TON of legitimate challengers came out -- a lot more than today's market.

[kevincure]

But the 4 year Xbox cycle is the shortest cycle for any given manufacturer - the Saturn-Dreamcast cycle was slightly more than 4 years. Sony has 5 years, 6 years. Nintendo has 5 years, 5 years, 5 years. Sega had 6 years, 4+ years.

[goatdan]

But the 4 year Xbox cycle is the shortest cycle for any given manufacturer - the Saturn-Dreamcast cycle was slightly more than 4 years. Sony has 5 years, 6 years. Nintendo has 5 years, 5 years, 5 years. Sega had 6 years, 4+ years.

But Microsoft is doing that as a strategic move to better position themselves in the next generation. If you want to get picky, Sega released the 32X and the Saturn within a year of eachother. In a period of ten years, Sega released the Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn and Dreamcast...

Really, this isn't an odd cycle at all. The only thing that people are finding odd about it is that the next machines don't look that better anymore. When we jumped from SNES to Playstation, it was literally 2D to 3D. When it was PSX to PS2, it was kinda crappy looking 3D to highly detailed 3D. Now, we're jumping from highly detailed 3D to more highly detailed 3D, so people aren't as amazed by it all.

The thing that is driving this is Microsoft's want to be there for HDTV gamers immediately, instead of a while after it becomes a standard. Because of that, Sony is also jumping in. Microsoft also wants to force Sony to come out with new hardware, because before they had stated that they felt that 10+ years would be a fair time from now on with one console. Personally, I'd rather see them evolve quicker than that.

[The-Bavis]

Microsoft also wants to force Sony to come out with new hardware, because before they had stated that they felt that 10+ years would be a fair time from now on with one console. Personally, I'd rather see them evolve quicker than that.

I don't think they were talking about waiting 10 years between console releases, but just 10 years of shelf life for a console. They were basing that statement on the PSOne's success alongside the PS2. Don't know if you can still buy a new PSOne, but if so, that's about 10 years.

[goatdan]

I don't think they were talking about waiting 10 years between console releases, but just 10 years of shelf life for a console. They were basing that statement on the PSOne's success alongside the PS2. Don't know if you can still buy a new PSOne, but if so, that's about 10 years.

They were talking about the time between console releases because they had discussed how they could save a lot of money on research and development. Also, I wouldn't say that the PSX's success was quite that good. While I beleive they are still making some PSOne consoles, there haven't exactly been any hit games made for the PSX since the PS2 came out.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea to try keeping consoles on the market longer, just that Sony wants to keep it longer. I think that Microsoft's idea was that they would be the first to release a console because if Sony was looking at this 10 year plan, they wouldn't have much ready to go and would have to quickly cobble together a system to compete. I have no clue if that happened or not, but from a strategic point of view, that has the potential to help Microsoft a lot.

[shvnsth]

some snotty kid just went out and bought one with real-world money thanks to his $150.00 weekly allowance from Daddy!

am i the only fucking person that has noticed for some reason dudes that think they are supper hardcore about gaming also hate rich people, kids in general. why don't we talk about our racism or our sexism as much as we talk about our hate for rich people?

[Ed Oscuro]

Because hating irresponsible people is justified?

[bargora]

some snotty kid just went out and bought one with real-world money thanks to his $150.00 weekly allowance from Daddy!
am i the only fucking person that has noticed for some reason dudes that think they are supper hardcore about gaming also hate rich people, kids in general. why don't we talk about our racism or our sexism as much as we talk about our hate for rich people?
1. Sex and race are things that you just can't change about yourself. (Well, not without major effort.) It's easy to stop being rich. And so I suppose that it just doesn't seem as wrong to talk smack about people who choose to be a certain way.

2. Kids in online games are generally irritating. Kids in online games who beat you and then squeak about how they "owned" you (and then go on about your mother being a whore) are insufferable. Kids who "owned" you with the +50 Daikatana, not because they earned or found it in the game, but because dad bought it for them--well, I can see that not sitting too well with some people.

3. I thought that the writer was addressing point 2 above, not cracking on rich people in general. At least, I don't think he was. Are you perhaps feeling extra-sensitive on this issue?

[ddockery]

I took it as him having a problem with the micro-transaction because in theory it won't be about who is better at a game, but rather who threw the mosty money at the game. And that does suck.

[Fuyukaze]

some snotty kid just went out and bought one with real-world money thanks to his $150.00 weekly allowance from Daddy!

am i the only fucking person that has noticed for some reason dudes that think they are supper hardcore about gaming also hate rich people, kids in general. why don't we talk about our racism or our sexism as much as we talk about our hate for rich people?

Actualy, I think you are the only person to notice that. More often then not, I find most rich people who buy up lots of games in a short amount of time call themselves "hard core" gamers. What defines someone as being truely "hard core" is beyond me though. I personaly think the term is both lame and gay as its just another attempt to make someone sound superior in what ever they do over other people who share the same interest. I dont intend to insult either you or people who are gay with this statment either. If your parents can afford to buy you 20 games a month without a problem in the world, I say enjoy. Its a hell of alot better then people I see and know who choose between paying the bills, getting food, or getting a new damned game. If you cant afford to pay rent, why the hell are you looking at a new game? Baby formual always comes first! No, this is definitly not targeting you. Just former friends who will never read it. I dont envy you a bit even if you should get more then I. As a long time game fan, I myself have plenty of games already I have yet to beat (much less play) so I dont see why I should care what other game fans have. Talk about racism and sexist? Why? Because some people are ignorant and small minded? I fail to see your point in this.


As to what this original thread was about, I thought the article brought up a number of good points but ultimatly failed to be anything more then the bitching and whining of a shody "game fan". I dont see a need for A rated games yet as every single one of you should be able to see how much harm it can have for the gaming industry at this time. Look how much political heat it recieves over games like Grand Theft Auto, or games like Doom 3. If we had games that featured full frontal nudity, or scense of sexual penetration, parents groups round the world would have a literal f'n feild day with it! Maybe there will be a day where we can have games like this. Games that only adults can play, games where the story line can be deep, and the charcters can honestly have development that doesnt include phisical measurments. This is not that day sadly.

[SirDrexl]

I think the deserted island game is Survival Kids, which was a Game Boy Color game IIRC.

I don't agree with his opinion on being able to save at any time (#6). It would be like playing every game on an emulator with endless save states-all too easy. The challenge is having to get from one point to another without being able to save any time you want to.

[Mayhem]

To me nowadays, as compared to the past, the only real things to seem to make anyone stand out as being "hardcore" are actively making time to play games (as opposed to playing games to fill time) and being open to different, new or foreign game types instead of the usual FPS, driving, sports genres prevelant over here.

[Flack]

The one that hit home most for me is the one about games being advertised with cutscenes. We're at a point now where all the current consoles can show DVD video, so hell why not just make a short movie and use that as the commercial? Those cutscene ads, especially the sports ones, don't tell me a damn thing about the game.

[shvnsth]

Because hating irresponsible people is justified?

so poor people who have 2,000 are more responsible than a rich person with 2,000 games, or one with 100?

i have met just as many pricks that were 20 years old on xbox live cussing me out, but i sort of expect it from kids, i don't really blame them, thats how kids are. but from adults, then it actually becomes a shame, because they are grown ups who act like assholes over the internet.

and you don't choose to be rich, nor can you just stop being rich (give it all away?), so attacking people because they have money and choose to spend it on games is stupid.


I personaly think the term is both lame and gay as its just another attempt to make someone sound superior in what ever they do over other people who share the same interest.

good to know that while we are talking about rich people, we can also attack gay people, or relate them to all things lame.

[bargora]

and you don't choose to be rich, nor can you just stop being rich (give it all away?)
Precisely. :)

[zmweasel]

and you don't choose to be rich, nor can you just stop being rich (give it all away?)
Precisely. :)

You can't choose to be rich, but you can choose to try and *become* rich via hard work, financial investments, et cetera. And it's impossible not to have more respect for someone who earned a fortune than someone who inherited it.

-- Z.

[Fuyukaze]

Umich wrote-

Fuyukaze wrote-

I personaly think the term is both lame and gay as its just another attempt to make someone sound superior in what ever they do over other people who share the same interest.


good to know that while we are talking about rich people, we can also attack gay people, or relate them to all things lame.


Huh, I guess you didnt bother to read everything I said, or felt it would be much better to simply shorten/omit parts to fit what ever you felt it needed to be? Next time, quote the entire thing. You know, the part that includes THIS.


I dont intend to insult either you or people who are gay with this statment either.

I believe this should have been enough to clarify to all those who are homosexual, that I ment no disprespect, no hatred, or any form of prejiduce twords them. I also believed it would explain a lack of ill will twords yourself as well. Perhaps in your rush to defend what ever title or position you believe you have, you over looked this?

Before you go storming people over what they say, try to keep what they say in context.

Also, I personaly have nothing against you being rich. Envy of another mans fortune is beyond me. If you cant be happy with the things you have, how on earth can you posibly be happy with what others have?

[shvnsth]

Umich wrote-

Fuyukaze wrote-

I personaly think the term is both lame and gay as its just another attempt to make someone sound superior in what ever they do over other people who share the same interest.


good to know that while we are talking about rich people, we can also attack gay people, or relate them to all things lame.


Huh, I guess you didnt bother to read everything I said, or felt it would be much better to simply shorten/omit parts to fit what ever you felt it needed to be? Next time, quote the entire thing. You know, the part that includes THIS.


I dont intend to insult either you or people who are gay with this statment either.

I believe this should have been enough to clarify to all those who are homosexual, that I ment no disprespect, no hatred, or any form of prejiduce twords them. I also believed it would explain a lack of ill will twords yourself as well. Perhaps in your rush to defend what ever title or position you believe you have, you over looked this?

Before you go storming people over what they say, try to keep what they say in context.

Also, I personaly have nothing against you being rich. Envy of another mans fortune is beyond me. If you cant be happy with the things you have, how on earth can you posibly be happy with what others have?

you can say that at the end, but it doesn't fix the problem at all. if you call someone a "flaming faggot" and then say no offence at the end, it doesn't stop making it offensive, nor does it put you in the right. the problem is that most people use it as a derogitory term and see no problem with it, but it is a derogitory term, and there is no excuse for using it. you could just man up to it, instead of trying to explain it.

ill admit that i have used the word before, and have used other derogitory terms in my life, but i don't try to find an excuse for using them.

[Fuyukaze]

you can say that at the end, but it doesn't fix the problem at all. if you call someone a "flaming faggot" and then say no offence at the end, it doesn't stop making it offensive, nor does it put you in the right. the problem is that most people use it as a derogitory term and see no problem with it, but it is a derogitory term, and there is no excuse for using it. you could just man up to it, instead of trying to explain it.

ill admit that i have used the word before, and have used other derogitory terms in my life, but i don't try to find an excuse for using them.

In effect, this has become no more then a pissing war to see who is superior. I will admit to using the terms "Gay", "Lame", and "Rich". I wont admit to using them in any derogitory form though. Say what you will, I guess it come natural? We should stop though as we are both completely off the topic of the original post.

[shvnsth]

yes we are both off topic, sorry about that.