Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Videogame Museum opens in NY

  1. #41
    Great Puma (Level 12)
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    4,278
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger View Post

    Besides, as I said, video games are the result of advancing PC hardware, not the cause. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. As PC hardware improves and becomes more cost effective, video games take advantage of it. The scenario you're presenting is, if not completely untrue, certainly the exception rather than the rule. I think you're letting your subjectivity take hold of your arguments.
    You do realize that video game systems were around for almost 10 years before most households owned their first home computers, right? In fact, until about 1977, you couldn't even buy a practical computer for your home and even then, it was outrageously priced. When I got my first Apple II in 1980, I was literally the only person in my elementary school class who had one for about two years. Video Games are the result of people looking for practical consumer applications for electronics technology and they go back to the earliest college mainframes and to the experiments Ralph Baer was doing with common television components. They are not and were not the result of advances in PC hardware.

    You might want to have a conversation with Steve Wozniak or some of the other folks who drove the home computer from a hobbyist tool to a mainstream consumer item and ask them what they think has driven computer specs forward. Here's a clue, it wasn't word processing or business applications. Even Andy Grove from Intel was interviewed a number of times and credited or rather lamented the fact that games had shortened the estimated life cycle of his various processor families by literally years. Video games have always been the driver of computer advances and without them, there would be almost no need for most computer owners to upgrade more than every decade or so.

  2. #42
    ServBot (Level 11) TonyTheTiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,550
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bojay1997 View Post
    You do realize that video game systems were around for almost 10 years before most households owned their first home computers, right? In fact, until about 1977, you couldn't even buy a practical computer for your home and even then, it was outrageously priced. When I got my first Apple II in 1980, I was literally the only person in my elementary school class who had one for about two years. Video Games are the result of people looking for practical consumer applications for electronics technology and they go back to the earliest college mainframes and to the experiments Ralph Baer was doing with common television components. They are not and were not the result of advances in PC hardware.

    You might want to have a conversation with Steve Wozniak or some of the other folks who drove the home computer from a hobbyist tool to a mainstream consumer item and ask them what they think has driven computer specs forward. Here's a clue, it wasn't word processing or business applications. Even Andy Grove from Intel was interviewed a number of times and credited or rather lamented the fact that games had shortened the estimated life cycle of his various processor families by literally years. Video games have always been the driver of computer advances and without them, there would be almost no need for most computer owners to upgrade more than every decade or so.
    You're conflating two independent arguments. Games requiring more advanced hardware as time progresses vs. why computers exist in the first place. And so what if computer tech wasn't affordable for the home market for a while? It still existed and the technology can trace its roots back as early as World War II. Just because video games were built with more affordable technology and thus were more widely accessible doesn't mean a whole lot when looking at computer advancements.

    You said it yourself. "Video Games are the result of people looking for practical consumer applications for electronics technology." The tech existed already.

    Obviously PC games today are what require the strongest rigs unless you're talking NASA shit which we obviously aren't. But a game isn't going to be developed on hardware that isn't accessible. Even Crysis is built for hardware that is relatively consumer focused. The hardware clearly has to exist first before a game can take advantage of it. Are you going to argue otherwise?

    I am aware that games play a major role in why people upgrade. But I still think you're making an absurdly bold claim that computer technology follows games rather than the opposite. That's like trying to argue that cars are what they are today because of NASCAR or F-1. NASCAR and F-1 push cars pretty far. But clearly those sports were born because of automotive technology. The car had to exist first and the car would have continued to improve even if these sports didn't exist.

    I'm also talking in the macrocosm as I've always been. If we look at the small of it, sure, we can see technology develop specifically for the purposes of video games. The Cell processor was. And I'm sure you can find examples of NASCAR engineers working to advance automotive tech specifically for use in the sport, some of which might have found its way into common use. But if you zoom out you see that the Cell processor and whatever NASCAR tech was built within a world that won't stop advancing. Cable modems weren't invented just so people could download MP3s faster. That's a result. If video games or automotive sports fell off the face of the planet the respective technologies wouldn't cease to move forward.

    Video games are a driving force in the sense that it's a successful industry and one more way to sell technology to people. But video games can succeed independently from computer advancements. Look at the Wii. The reverse is also true. Computer technology can advance without video games pushing them. Look at...well...everything else. But if computer tech didn't exist at all then we'd be playing Chess and Monopoly while Nintendo was still focused on selling cards.
    Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 03-21-2009 at 04:36 PM.

  3. #43
    Pac-Man (Level 10) NoahsMyBro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,144
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I undersatnd you're (Tony's) point that you are simply saying you don't think museum is an accurate term for an exhibit showcasing videogames and their related paraphernalia. I disagree, but don't want to address that, as it's just arguing semantics and we won't change each other's minds.

    I strongly disagree with you about whether or not videogames drive computer technology.

    I very much believe that the dominant motivators for advancement of computer technology, both hardware and software, are videogames and porn. (Hell, I sincerely believe porn or simple physical lust drives almost all technology, directly or indirectly. I believe most men are deep down, fundamentally motivated by a desire to get the girl, so to speak. This can manifest itself in creating something that would be perceived as cool, or creating something that will profit the man, and thereby get girls that he believes are attracted to cash. But I suppose I'm deviating from the topic considerably at this point.)

    I think storage, graphics, sound, memory management, peripherals and input devices, display technology, all have been advanced due to demand from videogame and/or porn consumers. The only computer tech that I can possibly see not being somehow driven by videogames is networking.
    "A 'Radical Centrist' ??? Isn't that like being a Take-No-Prisoners Pussy? " - Stephen Colbert
    My Resume
    My Blog


  4. #44
    ServBot (Level 11) TonyTheTiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,550
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoahsMyBro View Post
    I undersatnd you're (Tony's) point that you are simply saying you don't think museum is an accurate term for an exhibit showcasing videogames and their related paraphernalia. I disagree, but don't want to address that, as it's just arguing semantics and we won't change each other's minds.
    Fair enough. I even said I was using "museum" in a highly vernacular way and if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. I'm certainly no expert on what constitutes a museum. I was just shooting from the gut on that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoahsMyBro View Post
    I strongly disagree with you about whether or not videogames drive computer technology.

    I very much believe that the dominant motivators for advancement of computer technology, both hardware and software, are videogames and porn. (Hell, I sincerely believe porn or simple physical lust drives almost all technology, directly or indirectly. I believe most men are deep down, fundamentally motivated by a desire to get the girl, so to speak. This can manifest itself in creating something that would be perceived as cool, or creating something that will profit the man, and thereby get girls that he believes are attracted to cash. But I suppose I'm deviating from the topic considerably at this point.)

    I think storage, graphics, sound, memory management, peripherals and input devices, display technology, all have been advanced due to demand from videogame and/or porn consumers. The only computer tech that I can possibly see not being somehow driven by videogames is networking.
    The porn thing is funny because while I won't comment on whether or not it helped advance technology (because I don't know) the fact that it was a major reason why VHS beat out Betamax shows how much power it has.

    I'd actually try to one up you, though. I think we also have a drive not only based on lust but also a drive to create. I think we do things to find out if we can. I think that more than anything else is why we have the computer.

    Look, if we see computer advancement as a pie chart and dissect it according to what influenced it, I certainly am not going to attempt to argue that video games played 0% because not only is that a claim well beyond what I'm capable of defending, it's also something I don't believe. I think that there's a collective drive, however, rather than any one specific thing. It's not easy to look at the difference between the top of the line HDD of 1994 and the top of the line HDD today and say without a shadow of a doubt that X industry/product drove that advancement. Suffice to say that a lot drove that advancement, the insanely profitable video game industry probably being a part of that collective.

    What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that we can look at the computer and say "This tech exists because of video games." Rather I think what we should say is "This tech exists because there is use for it." Video games are a use.
    Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 03-21-2009 at 04:56 PM.

  5. #45
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    It demonstrates ignorance and myopia to claim that the scientific, military, and consumer applications markets haven't mutually benefited from developments in each field. Scientific and military applications laid the groundwork for game technology, and now games technology is providing scientists with lower-cost budgets, thus allowing more people in science to create and analyze better models, and conduct simulations that were once reserved only for the most important research. The end result is improved science, and that improved science will in turn have benefits for military applications and gaming.

    I already discussed gaming technology being used in military applications; Evans & Sutherland led the way in flight simulation in the 70s, but consumer gaming tech let soldiers on the ground have yet another training tool at low cost. There's the DOOM modification made by the Marines, there's Full Spectrum Warrior, there's field medic "serious games" made by gaming companies, and tons of other examples if you poke your head out and look around. If environment simulation still depended on $60,000 Evans & Sutherland machines to do the job, the only people who could use those systems would be fighter pilots and tankers.

    The developments in graphics seem to solely impact entertainment, if you're a home enthusiast, but that's just if you don't know that scientific users are using this hardware too. Take the nVidia Tesla, for example. If the only airplanes I ever saw and knew of were fighter planes, passenger service might not be the first thing on my mind, but that doesn't mean that the fighter jet's development doesn't deserve credit for advances in fare-paying aviation.

    The dynamics of the market situation between, say, nVidia and Intel in the processors and video markets was driven (until the downturn) by companies wanting to grab the mainstream crown. And even now, with everybody excited about low-cost PCs (netbooks and the like) the situation will remain, just with more focus on being "green" and inexpensive. So that's pretty dang significant. nVidia is at least partly responsible for Intel stepping up its game, and for Microsoft telling everybody they needed advanced graphics hardware for Vista, and so on.

    nVidia and ATI's work in the industry may have been in relatively low volume, compared to integrated solutions like Intel and other people put out, but it sure was good press for the industry. It's an open question as to whether nVidia will even survive (ATI got bought by AMD so it's now not dependent solely on enthusiast sales) if the economy doesn't turn around and also in the face of what Intel's been doing.

    Even if good times don't return for a while, nVidia and ATI will keep telling people that they need massively parallel computing capability like their GPUs provide, and they do provide amazing benefits in certain applications.
    Last edited by Ed Oscuro; 03-21-2009 at 05:05 PM.

  6. #46
    Bell (Level 8) mnbren05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kent, OH
    Posts
    1,765
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonicwolf View Post
    Another museum, several thousand kilometers away. *Cries*
    You know if you replace kilometers with miles everything seems to get much closer to you .

  7. #47
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnbren05 View Post
    You know if you replace kilometers with miles everything seems to get much closer to you .

  8. #48
    ServBot (Level 11) TonyTheTiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,550
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    It made me

  9. #49
    Great Puma (Level 12)
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    4,278
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger View Post
    You're conflating two independent arguments. Games requiring more advanced hardware as time progresses vs. why computers exist in the first place. And so what if computer tech wasn't affordable for the home market for a while? It still existed and the technology can trace its roots back as early as World War II. Just because video games were built with more affordable technology and thus were more widely accessible doesn't mean a whole lot when looking at computer advancements.

    You said it yourself. "Video Games are the result of people looking for practical consumer applications for electronics technology." The tech existed already.

    Obviously PC games today are what require the strongest rigs unless you're talking NASA shit which we obviously aren't. But a game isn't going to be developed on hardware that isn't accessible. Even Crysis is built for hardware that is relatively consumer focused. The hardware clearly has to exist first before a game can take advantage of it. Are you going to argue otherwise?

    I am aware that games play a major role in why people upgrade. But I still think you're making an absurdly bold claim that computer technology follows games rather than the opposite. That's like trying to argue that cars are what they are today because of NASCAR or F-1. NASCAR and F-1 push cars pretty far. But clearly those sports were born because of automotive technology. The car had to exist first and the car would have continued to improve even if these sports didn't exist.

    I'm also talking in the macrocosm as I've always been. If we look at the small of it, sure, we can see technology develop specifically for the purposes of video games. The Cell processor was. And I'm sure you can find examples of NASCAR engineers working to advance automotive tech specifically for use in the sport, some of which might have found its way into common use. But if you zoom out you see that the Cell processor and whatever NASCAR tech was built within a world that won't stop advancing. Cable modems weren't invented just so people could download MP3s faster. That's a result. If video games or automotive sports fell off the face of the planet the respective technologies wouldn't cease to move forward.

    Video games are a driving force in the sense that it's a successful industry and one more way to sell technology to people. But video games can succeed independently from computer advancements. Look at the Wii. The reverse is also true. Computer technology can advance without video games pushing them. Look at...well...everything else. But if computer tech didn't exist at all then we'd be playing Chess and Monopoly while Nintendo was still focused on selling cards.
    The more I look at your arguments, the more clear it is to me that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing which is a waste of everyone's time. You have already conceded that you had a mistaken definition of "museum" which if you take some time and look back was the central dispute you had with this whole idea of a video game museum in the first place. It's also pretty clear to me that you don't really have a good understanding of how technology gets created and how it advances. There are many, many things which have been invented for one purpose and never really took off, but as soon as someone found another use for them, they became huge culture changing phenomena. The Internet is a great example. It was developed many years ago as a way for scientists and researchers to share their findings. It wasn't until the early 90s when it became a consumer tool that its promise was realized. So, in that sense, without MP3s and videos and e-commerce and everything else which it is now used for, it may never have been anything more than a scientific tool. Video Games are similar in that sense with regard to the impact they had on the computer, just as film and television are to motion picture cameras.

    The Wii is a terrible example by the way in the sense that it is both a step back in technology, but a step forward in user interfaces. Without the technology to do inexpensive motion tracking, the Wii couldn't exist. Without the Wii, and consumer devices like it, there would be no need for people to be spending money on developing the technology which frankly is pretty old but just was never used in the way that the Wii uses it. Video games push the computer industry forward and the computer industry grows and evolves as a result of demands and pressures and the potential for revenue from feeding the video game industry.

  10. #50
    ServBot (Level 11) TonyTheTiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,550
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stonic View Post
    This thread is about a VIDEO GAME museum, correct? Then video gaming "firsts" such as those I mentioned would certainly apply as a significant historical event, would they not?

    Tony, you need to define specifically where the 'lines' are in your argument, because if you think for one moment that "firsts" like multiple screens (or a "world" that is larger than just the boundary of your screen ala Adventure), digitized sounds and graphics, vector graphics, or even various controllers only had in impact in the field of video games, and never trickled down into other fields, then you're the one who's going to be laughed at (hell, I'm laughing now).
    Again, horrible horrible misreading of everything I said. I realize now why I was wrong to make an apparently offensive statement. There was no chance I could ever get a fair shake because it's impossible to present an argument when some can't see the forest for the trees. Advancement for video games is not indicative of advancement of something as broad as human civilization. In what way has multiple screens impacted human civilization? Where did I ever say that it wasn't important in the context of the microcosm of the video game industry? But we weren't talking about that microcosm. We were talking about actual history.

    Again, if you can't see that, well, I guess you win because I can't make an argument if you won't respect its parameters. Is it really down right impossible to make a statement that isn't 100% "YAY VIDEO GAMES!" and not be seen as the enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bojay1997 View Post
    The more I look at your arguments, the more clear it is to me that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing which is a waste of everyone's time. You have already conceded that you had a mistaken definition of "museum" which if you take some time and look back was the central dispute you had with this whole idea of a video game museum in the first place. It's also pretty clear to me that you don't really have a good understanding of how technology gets created and how it advances. There are many, many things which have been invented for one purpose and never really took off, but as soon as someone found another use for them, they became huge culture changing phenomena. The Internet is a great example. It was developed many years ago as a way for scientists and researchers to share their findings. It wasn't until the early 90s when it became a consumer tool that its promise was realized. So, in that sense, without MP3s and videos and e-commerce and everything else which it is now used for, it may never have been anything more than a scientific tool. Video Games are similar in that sense with regard to the impact they had on the computer, just as film and television are to motion picture cameras.
    Speculation. All speculation. And painfully broad speculation at that.

    And, for the record, I was not the one who spread the argument. I made an exceedingly narrow statement and through the course of discussion it grew to incorporate larger and larger principles. Principles that are independent from my original statement. It must feel good to say "you're just arguing for the sake of arguing" but the truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what I say, you're apparently unwilling to actually read it for what it says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bojay1997 View Post
    The Wii is a terrible example by the way in the sense that it is both a step back in technology, but a step forward in user interfaces. Without the technology to do inexpensive motion tracking, the Wii couldn't exist. Without the Wii, and consumer devices like it, there would be no need for people to be spending money on developing the technology which frankly is pretty old but just was never used in the way that the Wii uses it. Video games push the computer industry forward and the computer industry grows and evolves as a result of demands and pressures and the potential for revenue from feeding the video game industry.
    The Wii's user interface isn't new. It's just new for video games. If anything, that's been my point all along.

    But, that's really it. I can't be going through this where if I say something it takes 2 or 3 people to bend my arguments before I reel everyone back in to the actual scale of the argument. Are you both really unwilling to stick within the parameters of my presented claims? I already said multiple times that this "social impact" stuff and the "museum" stuff were completely unrelated. But apparently you'd rather conflate my premises with a conclusion broader than I ever intended to come to, and never did come to, and then attack it as if that somehow closes the issue because "I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing." I never made a claim I wasn't capable of defending. You, however, have twisted my claims into something I'm not capable of defending as an attempt to shut me down. Not once did I say video games never had any relevance in society ever. But apparently I did because that's the argument you both are fighting against. You're arguing with something that isn't there.

    I've been as cordial as I can but you seem to be getting more aggressive the more I talk. And I'm still trying to figure out why since I don't think I said anything particularly offensive or insulting to begin with.

    "Video games don't cure cancer."

    Oh, god! Let's get this guy! He said video games are bad for you!

    That's what you're doing.

    "I'm laughing now" and "You're just arguing for the sake of arguing." These are not arguments. These do not advance your points or successfully challenge your opponents'. They don't win over hearts and minds. What they do is reveal that you're taking this far more personally than any objective person would. Should I repeat what I said before about letting subjectivity take hold? If anything, this is some evidence that you aren't really arguing because of the facts but rather because you feel the need to defend video games. This is my hobby, too. But it's sometimes a good thing to step back and really examine it and ask questions about it and consider that it might be or not be something. I'm not "arguing for the sake of arguing" but If I am then it's because I'm trying to reveal your biases to you.

    And don't think that I yell "bias" just because someone doesn't agree with me. Somebody can disagree with me, and even beat me, and not be biased. Or, rather, not let their biases get in the way of their arguments and counter arguments. Just look at NoahsMyBro's post. But I see a bias in you two because you seem more interested in "beating me" for the sake of defending our hobby rather than beating me because there's something fundamentally wrong with what I've been saying.
    Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 03-23-2009 at 12:24 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. The Videogame History Museum: How You Can Help
    By digitalpress in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-03-2013, 12:08 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-15-2012, 12:53 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-22-2009, 08:01 PM
  4. Videogame Memorabilia Museum
    By NESVIDIOT in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-09-2006, 02:33 PM
  5. Anyone seen this videogame museum before?
    By boatofcar in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-17-2003, 09:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •