- Forums
- EverQuest
- General Discussion
- Scratchware- The gaming revolution
Scratchware- The gaming revolutionFollow
9 posts
http://www.the-underdogs.org/scratch.php
You know, I'd be a bit more moved by the scratchware manifesto if I didn't keep getting pop-up ads while reading it.
Don't get me wrong. I know lots of sites are supported by those things, in theory. But don't preach to me about how wrong the status quo is while you're busy shoring it up.
Where's that koolaid again, Rev. Jim?
My $.02,
Don't get me wrong. I know lots of sites are supported by those things, in theory. But don't preach to me about how wrong the status quo is while you're busy shoring it up.
Where's that koolaid again, Rev. Jim?
My $.02,
9 posts
That isn't my website. It's just an article I read that seemed to have a lot to do with the current state of EQ
Very interesting and thought provoking.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I know lots of sites are supported by those things, in theory. But don't preach to me about how wrong the status quo is while you're busy shoring it up.
You know, that does sound a lot like I was gunning for you. I wasn't, though. I was making a statement of general dislike for what I saw there. No offense intended. :)
9 posts
Eh, it's all good. Even though you're not, I'm used to people calling me an loser/n00b/spammer for bringing up something like this.
Some of it is true. Most of it is *********
Want the real reason why companies like Sony, Nintendo and the rest take no riskes with games? want the real reason why games cost so much?
it's none of the rubbish they are printing on that site it's more simple than that
Copied games are killing the industry.
I can see a time in the not so distant future where all games are digitally downloaded and only from the publisher.
it's none of the rubbish they are printing on that site it's more simple than that
Copied games are killing the industry.
I can see a time in the not so distant future where all games are digitally downloaded and only from the publisher.
9 posts
You should follow the advice in your sig instead believing everything you're told by companies that are after your money.
Oh by the way, explain how game copying caused there to be no risks taken with games. From what I remember, DOOM could be installed off the same CD onto millions of different computers, and that was arguably the biggest step in video game history. The only other thing that ranks in comparasin to Doom was Ultima, and you could just as easily copy Ultima from computer to computer. Same with Red Alert, and most other groundbreaking games.
Your theory of how game copying is causing gaming to stagnate is naive, unfounded, and historically disproven. But then again, game companies need a scapegoat, and what better scapegoat to use than the one that's cutting into their profits? Not to say that game copying is right, but it certainly has nothing to do with the issue at hand here. If you have something to say, please be able to back it with facts.
Edited, Sat May 29 05:01:48 2004 by DivineWinds
Oh by the way, explain how game copying caused there to be no risks taken with games. From what I remember, DOOM could be installed off the same CD onto millions of different computers, and that was arguably the biggest step in video game history. The only other thing that ranks in comparasin to Doom was Ultima, and you could just as easily copy Ultima from computer to computer. Same with Red Alert, and most other groundbreaking games.
Your theory of how game copying is causing gaming to stagnate is naive, unfounded, and historically disproven. But then again, game companies need a scapegoat, and what better scapegoat to use than the one that's cutting into their profits? Not to say that game copying is right, but it certainly has nothing to do with the issue at hand here. If you have something to say, please be able to back it with facts.
Edited, Sat May 29 05:01:48 2004 by DivineWinds
Really? i would say that if i was making a product that was making me a 10% mark up and people started illeagally copying the games i have two choises
1. Increase the markup % to ensure that my stockholders receive a good return on thier money thus maintaining the high share value and allowing me to continue to produce other games.
2. Only produce games that are apsolutely sure to make me money because i know with the hugely reduced sales figures that my games now have i cannot afford to have a game fail because i will no longer have a business.
I surgest you try taking some classes in ecconomics before commenting on the policy decisions of multi national corperations.
1. Increase the markup % to ensure that my stockholders receive a good return on thier money thus maintaining the high share value and allowing me to continue to produce other games.
2. Only produce games that are apsolutely sure to make me money because i know with the hugely reduced sales figures that my games now have i cannot afford to have a game fail because i will no longer have a business.
I surgest you try taking some classes in ecconomics before commenting on the policy decisions of multi national corperations.
9 posts
Right... I guess all my years of Business Administration classes I've taken don't count as Economics classes. Just because I don't care to make a sig or avatar does not mean I'm uneducated.
By the way, where exactly did you find that game companies are making a 10% markup?
And you have yet to tell my why games like Doom, Ultima, the Command and Conquer managed to flourish in the face of rampant copying. Don't dodge the issue at hand. You think that game copying is the devil, so back it up.
Tell me, would you be satisfied with a game that has the same interface, same leveling system, same monsters, same skills, same classes as EQ? Would you go spend money to buy it? Maybe. Maybe not. But I'm sure some people would buy it. Those people that would buy it may or may not manage to pay back the company's expenses for producing the game. Businesses think on the margin. If the estimated returns for a game exceed the production cost, they will go through with making the game. However, thinking on the margin like this causes businesses to only create games that have had a history of success. I.E. lame copy.
Perhaps you got caught up in whatever class you took and haven't realized this, but the rest of the world isn't thinking on the margin. We want something new and entertaining. Not the same old crap that we've seen before. Look at City of Heroes. They innovated and look what they've got. A fervently loyal fanbase that absolutely loves the game. This is an example of a game that was not rushed through development, where the coders were able to take their time and do what THEY wanted to do. (Just look at the beta. Not a single complaint about gameplay was found all through the testing stages, and that can be proven by asking anybody who participated.)
But I've gone off on a tangent. The point is, when businesses look towards self-perpetuation, the result is end goods that are mediocre at best, substandard at worst. This is an example of a self serving company. Any company that claims they serve the customer with a mentality like that is a joke. Companies can get by on that, but when a company dares to challenge the norm with an innovative game (C&C Renegade, CoH, The Elder Scrolls, Baldur's Gate, Homeworld, EQ) All arguably the latest innovations in this age of gaming, that is where real customer service lies. And in the end, you and I are customers, not business owners. Business owners are business owners, not customers. Economics in the business world is simply the knowledge required to maximize profit. In other words, getting as much money as they can out of customers. Since day one of its inception, Economics has virtually split the customers and businessmen apart. Business owners show no compassion to the customers, save the bare minimum that is needed to put on a friendly facade. They set the prices based on the demand, supply, competitors prices, and international prices. Not in a single economics book does customer satisfaction factor into any equation. What will maximize the satisfaction of the customer is overlooked in favor of increased capital. Any basic economics class teaches this. Not even sales are a form of customer satisfaction. Sales are simply a tool from which to glean money from those whom the price level does not meet their demand. And "well-educated" people buy into it and show compassion to these business owners because they think the system they worked so hard to understand benefits everybody equally. If you buy into your own hype, then you allow companies to get away with taking so few risks, then congratulations. You've entered sheepworld. Everquest would not be on the shelves had Verant not taken a risk in breaking the MMO ground so graciously as they have. Unfortunately, the latest events have not fared so well for EQ.
Your "Don't question them" mentality is what keeps inept video game companies in business. Coincidentally, the empasse that you've reached with SOE leaves only two questions that need to be asked to understand what you're thinking: Are you renewing your EQ subscription? Why?
Edited, Sat May 29 05:53:12 2004 by DivineWinds
By the way, where exactly did you find that game companies are making a 10% markup?
And you have yet to tell my why games like Doom, Ultima, the Command and Conquer managed to flourish in the face of rampant copying. Don't dodge the issue at hand. You think that game copying is the devil, so back it up.
Tell me, would you be satisfied with a game that has the same interface, same leveling system, same monsters, same skills, same classes as EQ? Would you go spend money to buy it? Maybe. Maybe not. But I'm sure some people would buy it. Those people that would buy it may or may not manage to pay back the company's expenses for producing the game. Businesses think on the margin. If the estimated returns for a game exceed the production cost, they will go through with making the game. However, thinking on the margin like this causes businesses to only create games that have had a history of success. I.E. lame copy.
Perhaps you got caught up in whatever class you took and haven't realized this, but the rest of the world isn't thinking on the margin. We want something new and entertaining. Not the same old crap that we've seen before. Look at City of Heroes. They innovated and look what they've got. A fervently loyal fanbase that absolutely loves the game. This is an example of a game that was not rushed through development, where the coders were able to take their time and do what THEY wanted to do. (Just look at the beta. Not a single complaint about gameplay was found all through the testing stages, and that can be proven by asking anybody who participated.)
But I've gone off on a tangent. The point is, when businesses look towards self-perpetuation, the result is end goods that are mediocre at best, substandard at worst. This is an example of a self serving company. Any company that claims they serve the customer with a mentality like that is a joke. Companies can get by on that, but when a company dares to challenge the norm with an innovative game (C&C Renegade, CoH, The Elder Scrolls, Baldur's Gate, Homeworld, EQ) All arguably the latest innovations in this age of gaming, that is where real customer service lies. And in the end, you and I are customers, not business owners. Business owners are business owners, not customers. Economics in the business world is simply the knowledge required to maximize profit. In other words, getting as much money as they can out of customers. Since day one of its inception, Economics has virtually split the customers and businessmen apart. Business owners show no compassion to the customers, save the bare minimum that is needed to put on a friendly facade. They set the prices based on the demand, supply, competitors prices, and international prices. Not in a single economics book does customer satisfaction factor into any equation. What will maximize the satisfaction of the customer is overlooked in favor of increased capital. Any basic economics class teaches this. Not even sales are a form of customer satisfaction. Sales are simply a tool from which to glean money from those whom the price level does not meet their demand. And "well-educated" people buy into it and show compassion to these business owners because they think the system they worked so hard to understand benefits everybody equally. If you buy into your own hype, then you allow companies to get away with taking so few risks, then congratulations. You've entered sheepworld. Everquest would not be on the shelves had Verant not taken a risk in breaking the MMO ground so graciously as they have. Unfortunately, the latest events have not fared so well for EQ.
Your "Don't question them" mentality is what keeps inept video game companies in business. Coincidentally, the empasse that you've reached with SOE leaves only two questions that need to be asked to understand what you're thinking: Are you renewing your EQ subscription? Why?
Edited, Sat May 29 05:53:12 2004 by DivineWinds
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Copied games are killing the industry.
funny , they've been saying that since i had an apple ][+ and ultima 1 was the big game . and every year the gaming industry posts bigger profits . somehow the 2 just don't add up
Funny how DivineWinds here only has 5 posts to his name...and all are on this topic. But no affliation with the link he put on the original post? Hmmphh...
For future reference this should go in the OOT forum.
I'm of two minds on the matter. Games with great concepts but crappy implementation really annoy me, because I know they could have been better. Wing commander privateer II for example. On the other hand, I've seen how EA buys up promising gaming companies, stripmines them, fires the talent, and flushes all future titles down the drain. it's been my experiance tha word spreads quickly. if a game is good, people will find out no matter what the developer was. Sure, some probably slip through, but that's mostly due to bad promotion.
I'm of two minds on the matter. Games with great concepts but crappy implementation really annoy me, because I know they could have been better. Wing commander privateer II for example. On the other hand, I've seen how EA buys up promising gaming companies, stripmines them, fires the talent, and flushes all future titles down the drain. it's been my experiance tha word spreads quickly. if a game is good, people will find out no matter what the developer was. Sure, some probably slip through, but that's mostly due to bad promotion.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Copying certainly doesn't apply to online games, where the ONLY thing that counts is the resistration number. You can't resell your software, when you are done playing and no longer want it.
No explanation there for why SOE releases a pile of **** that has more bugs than a real pile.
I have not seen Windows versions go down in price since it has become far more difficult to install illegally (yes a few people still do, but the percentage went way down, most people not knowing how to do it).
Advertising is a huge slice of any product. That's why you pay a lot more for a famous brand of anyting, than an unknown brand. I haven't bought a famous brand of cereal in years, the cost is insane.
I want to see more creative and different software that makes the creative people money. Even if its not a huge percentage like a book or a movie, it would be an improvement. At least they would have something.
No explanation there for why SOE releases a pile of **** that has more bugs than a real pile.
I have not seen Windows versions go down in price since it has become far more difficult to install illegally (yes a few people still do, but the percentage went way down, most people not knowing how to do it).
Advertising is a huge slice of any product. That's why you pay a lot more for a famous brand of anyting, than an unknown brand. I haven't bought a famous brand of cereal in years, the cost is insane.
I want to see more creative and different software that makes the creative people money. Even if its not a huge percentage like a book or a movie, it would be an improvement. At least they would have something.
Copying games is killing the industry just like MP3s are killing the music industry. Not at all. I do wish MP3s would kill the muisc industry. Ya know, Wayne Newton made tons of cash playing Vegas and has more money in the bank than nearly all the big names....because the 'industry' wasn't taking a huge cut out of his earnings. You know it's bad when your best shot at making good moeny involves letting the mafia give you a fair paycheck for your work....
I can honestly say I've never copied a game I would pay money for and the same goes for music. I've purchased a good number of MP3s since the advent of pay per song. But I'll be damned if I'm paying $15 for a CD with one (1) decent song on it. Getting the industry out of the music industry would be a good thing.
Far gaming, unfortunately, you NEED high levels of organization to put together something of value. Sheesh, some of the best games ever, IMO, were still headaches to get going. I used to spend hours head-scratching when my old PC suddenly couldn't get enough extended memory to handle Master of Magic. Back in the day, finishing a multiplayer game of anything was usually a sign of a lucky day. Hell, FINDING a multiplayer game to buy was a sign from heaven. The existence of an industry have advanced the level of gameplay available to the consumer singificantly in the past ten years and this would not have happened in any forseeable way if that industry structure was not in place.
Corporations do lots of stupid things. But often, a bad decision is better than no decision. They push and drive to get something out there to sell and promote the hell out of it even though the people promoting it have no clue of what it is. And we have a better end result than we would have had without them there. Not as good as we would like, but better than nothing.
I cried a tear ever time I saw another small software company gobbled up by Infrogames. I have never, ever, played a single title they put out and found it to be enjoyable. They took great concepts and turned them into unplayable games. They didn't know squat about games other than how to turn them into dollars. They promoted heavily and apparently made enough money to keep going and growing for years. I sighed in relief when they were gobbled up by Atari. Presumably, Atari knows something about games. That's an example of one of the bad things caused by 'the industry'. We all know about these sorts of things and hate to see them happen. But they do. And if the gaming industry were to dissolve today, we would not wind up operating under the manifesto; we'd leave the market open to another Bill Gates. (I don't hate the guy, but I'd hate to see the gaming industry dominated by just one company. Especially Microsoft).
I can honestly say I've never copied a game I would pay money for and the same goes for music. I've purchased a good number of MP3s since the advent of pay per song. But I'll be damned if I'm paying $15 for a CD with one (1) decent song on it. Getting the industry out of the music industry would be a good thing.
Far gaming, unfortunately, you NEED high levels of organization to put together something of value. Sheesh, some of the best games ever, IMO, were still headaches to get going. I used to spend hours head-scratching when my old PC suddenly couldn't get enough extended memory to handle Master of Magic. Back in the day, finishing a multiplayer game of anything was usually a sign of a lucky day. Hell, FINDING a multiplayer game to buy was a sign from heaven. The existence of an industry have advanced the level of gameplay available to the consumer singificantly in the past ten years and this would not have happened in any forseeable way if that industry structure was not in place.
Corporations do lots of stupid things. But often, a bad decision is better than no decision. They push and drive to get something out there to sell and promote the hell out of it even though the people promoting it have no clue of what it is. And we have a better end result than we would have had without them there. Not as good as we would like, but better than nothing.
I cried a tear ever time I saw another small software company gobbled up by Infrogames. I have never, ever, played a single title they put out and found it to be enjoyable. They took great concepts and turned them into unplayable games. They didn't know squat about games other than how to turn them into dollars. They promoted heavily and apparently made enough money to keep going and growing for years. I sighed in relief when they were gobbled up by Atari. Presumably, Atari knows something about games. That's an example of one of the bad things caused by 'the industry'. We all know about these sorts of things and hate to see them happen. But they do. And if the gaming industry were to dissolve today, we would not wind up operating under the manifesto; we'd leave the market open to another Bill Gates. (I don't hate the guy, but I'd hate to see the gaming industry dominated by just one company. Especially Microsoft).
"I sighed in relief when they were gobbled up by Atari. Presumably, Atari knows something about games."
Well I'm not going to get into the whole scratchware war, I just thought I'd point something out :) To the best of my knowledge, Infogrames bought the Atari name, and has henceforth begun publishing all of its titles, at least in the states, under the Atari label. Has to do with brand recognition and all that. I do find it odd however that after they started doing that, they suddenedly started to release some decent titles.
A quick trip to www.infogrames.com comes up with this:
"Infogrames is now officially Atari, and through this site, you'll be able to access all Atari product information from around the world, as well as corporate information about Atari, Inc. (our North American operations) and our parent company, Infogrames Entertainment SA.
The Atari legacy of innovation lives on..."
Edited, Sun May 30 19:42:11 2004 by Stashy
Well I'm not going to get into the whole scratchware war, I just thought I'd point something out :) To the best of my knowledge, Infogrames bought the Atari name, and has henceforth begun publishing all of its titles, at least in the states, under the Atari label. Has to do with brand recognition and all that. I do find it odd however that after they started doing that, they suddenedly started to release some decent titles.
A quick trip to www.infogrames.com comes up with this:
"Infogrames is now officially Atari, and through this site, you'll be able to access all Atari product information from around the world, as well as corporate information about Atari, Inc. (our North American operations) and our parent company, Infogrames Entertainment SA.
The Atari legacy of innovation lives on..."
Edited, Sun May 30 19:42:11 2004 by Stashy
Hmmm....I only read the first section of that article(manifesto, whatever) and the fallicies in the reasoning were so obvious that I didn't feel the need to continue reading(or continue subjecting myself to pop ups).
For starters, the comparison of a video game store to a book store actually is an argument against them. Sure a large local book store will have tens of thousands of titles(and we'll even ignore for the moment that the large local computer store will have many more than 40 titles as they suggest), but you have to realize two things:
One, written works have been around MUCH longer than computer games, so therefore the bookstore has over a thousand years of writing to draw their stock from, while a computer store has what, several decades? And yes, most of those books that you see in a bookstore are from earlier years.
And two, books usually aren't linear progressions that replace and outdate their predecessors, while games often are. What is the point in selling Madden 2000 if Madden 2004 is essentially the same game, just with upgrades. Not only does Return of the King not replace The Fellowship of the Ring, but the earlier novel is actually paramount to understanding the later work, making it more advantageous for bookstores to carry entire series of books.
Also the list of "startlingly innovative, amazing departures from what has gone before" that they put forth, one title on the list, The Sims, is actually an offshoot of another title on the list, Sim City. Doom was a spin off from an earlier first person shooter game called Wolfenstein, and Civilization isn't much more than an upgrade to earlier strategy games(one that comes to mind from my youth was a game set in the story of Robin hood. You could gain control of territories in Sherwood forest, build alliances, participate in tournaments and storm castles, another would be the classic Pirates of the Carribean). The point is that most if not all games are just new variations on old themes, period.
And the rhetoric that was put forth in the passage about the system not working and tearing it down...if you're that sure that a new system of business can succeed, then go out and do it. Make your company and game with a development team of one or two people, market your product, and if you're right it will work. Also if you're right about things only working the way they are because no one knows better, then do them differently and when you succeed, the markets will change and the large corporations will either change with you or fail, it's that simple.
The fact is that corporations such as Sony, NCsoft, Nintendo and the like do things they way they do because they're profitable. Corporations take their direction from the bottom line. If there wasn't profit in it, things would change. And for the authors to try and paint these large corporations as evil somehow, smacks of a small group surly that they can't get a piece of a very lucrative pie.
And I'm sorry, but if I'm going to get myself whipped into a revolutionary frenzy, there are MUCH more important things to get active about in the world than video games...
Edited, Mon May 31 05:07:30 2004 by danreynolds
For starters, the comparison of a video game store to a book store actually is an argument against them. Sure a large local book store will have tens of thousands of titles(and we'll even ignore for the moment that the large local computer store will have many more than 40 titles as they suggest), but you have to realize two things:
One, written works have been around MUCH longer than computer games, so therefore the bookstore has over a thousand years of writing to draw their stock from, while a computer store has what, several decades? And yes, most of those books that you see in a bookstore are from earlier years.
And two, books usually aren't linear progressions that replace and outdate their predecessors, while games often are. What is the point in selling Madden 2000 if Madden 2004 is essentially the same game, just with upgrades. Not only does Return of the King not replace The Fellowship of the Ring, but the earlier novel is actually paramount to understanding the later work, making it more advantageous for bookstores to carry entire series of books.
Also the list of "startlingly innovative, amazing departures from what has gone before" that they put forth, one title on the list, The Sims, is actually an offshoot of another title on the list, Sim City. Doom was a spin off from an earlier first person shooter game called Wolfenstein, and Civilization isn't much more than an upgrade to earlier strategy games(one that comes to mind from my youth was a game set in the story of Robin hood. You could gain control of territories in Sherwood forest, build alliances, participate in tournaments and storm castles, another would be the classic Pirates of the Carribean). The point is that most if not all games are just new variations on old themes, period.
And the rhetoric that was put forth in the passage about the system not working and tearing it down...if you're that sure that a new system of business can succeed, then go out and do it. Make your company and game with a development team of one or two people, market your product, and if you're right it will work. Also if you're right about things only working the way they are because no one knows better, then do them differently and when you succeed, the markets will change and the large corporations will either change with you or fail, it's that simple.
The fact is that corporations such as Sony, NCsoft, Nintendo and the like do things they way they do because they're profitable. Corporations take their direction from the bottom line. If there wasn't profit in it, things would change. And for the authors to try and paint these large corporations as evil somehow, smacks of a small group surly that they can't get a piece of a very lucrative pie.
And I'm sorry, but if I'm going to get myself whipped into a revolutionary frenzy, there are MUCH more important things to get active about in the world than video games...
Edited, Mon May 31 05:07:30 2004 by danreynolds
9 posts
"Well, I only read the first part of your post, and the fallicies in the reasoning were so obvious that I didn't feel the need to continue reading."
No, I'm just kidding. I'm not ignorant enough to to try and post an opinion about something I've never read.
First off, you start by saying thinking that the books to video game ratio is an important part of the argument. Wrong. Nitpickers such as yourself care so much to write 2 paragraphs about it in an attempt to give your argument credibility.
Second, you go on to say that new games are simply a spin off of old games. By doing so, you've given credibility to the scratchware manifesto's argument about innovation. Not only that, but you put forth your own criteria as to what constitutes a change, and you seem to fervently adhere to it. Well good for you, nice to know you have a bit of independet thought up there.
But whether you like it or not, gamers in general consider the aforementioned games to be innovations. If you don't think they are, then obviously you think either something needs to be changed, or that you don't care enough about it to think so. And since you're thinking under the pretense that you don't care, then why are you posting about something you claim not to care about? If you do, then do something about it, as you've so rightly put it. Don't drone the same generic crapola that we've all heard hundreds of times from people like you.
As for the garbage you posted at the end about lucrative pies or whatever... Well, that's just that. Garbage. In the meantime, while you do something besides try to prove your point, I'll point out what fallacies you made since you seem to like your fallacies so much.
1st paragraph- Hasty Generalization- Way to read the whole thing.
2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraph- Red Herring- The argument isn't about books. Just because you read a sentence that had to do with a bookstore is no reason to try to sway the subject towards your views on books and how you disagree with their veiws on books.
5th paragraph- Relativist fallacy- Sim City 2000 is an offshoot of Sim City. The Sims is not an offshoot of Sim City, as they are entirely separate games. And if you want to attack them for saying Doom was new, then fine. But you can just as easily substitute Doom with Wolfenstein and they would be right.
6th paragraph- Burden of Proof- If you think it takes one good company to change the marketplace, then you need to prove it. Your side of the argument has the burden of needing proof since there are companies like Sir-Tech, Bungie, and Godgames that fit your criteria, and they are either very close to going out of business or have been bought out by a bigger company.
7th paragraph- Ad Hominem/Appeal to Ridicule- The best way to wrap up a completely unfounded and educated argument is to sling some mud.
8th paragraph- And now you talk about not getting whipped up into a frenzy, yet here you are. Not only are you sharing your opinion on it, but you're even making up nonsehnsical arguments about it. I think that constitutes getting whipped up into a frenzy. If you claim not to care, then don't post about it. And if you do, then try to post something with some validity to it. I'm not going to write any more essays explaining these things to closed minded individuals.
If people don't agree with it, then fine, that's their opinion. You're also entitled to your own opinion, as uneducated as it may be. If people do agree with it, then that's their opinion too. What separates people is not what they believe, but how they can back up what they believe. Either way, all I want to do is give the opportunity for those who wish to learn, to learn. Anyone can learn from this regardless of whether they agree with the idea.
Edited, Mon May 31 17:58:45 2004 by DivineWinds
No, I'm just kidding. I'm not ignorant enough to to try and post an opinion about something I've never read.
First off, you start by saying thinking that the books to video game ratio is an important part of the argument. Wrong. Nitpickers such as yourself care so much to write 2 paragraphs about it in an attempt to give your argument credibility.
Second, you go on to say that new games are simply a spin off of old games. By doing so, you've given credibility to the scratchware manifesto's argument about innovation. Not only that, but you put forth your own criteria as to what constitutes a change, and you seem to fervently adhere to it. Well good for you, nice to know you have a bit of independet thought up there.
But whether you like it or not, gamers in general consider the aforementioned games to be innovations. If you don't think they are, then obviously you think either something needs to be changed, or that you don't care enough about it to think so. And since you're thinking under the pretense that you don't care, then why are you posting about something you claim not to care about? If you do, then do something about it, as you've so rightly put it. Don't drone the same generic crapola that we've all heard hundreds of times from people like you.
As for the garbage you posted at the end about lucrative pies or whatever... Well, that's just that. Garbage. In the meantime, while you do something besides try to prove your point, I'll point out what fallacies you made since you seem to like your fallacies so much.
1st paragraph- Hasty Generalization- Way to read the whole thing.
2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraph- Red Herring- The argument isn't about books. Just because you read a sentence that had to do with a bookstore is no reason to try to sway the subject towards your views on books and how you disagree with their veiws on books.
5th paragraph- Relativist fallacy- Sim City 2000 is an offshoot of Sim City. The Sims is not an offshoot of Sim City, as they are entirely separate games. And if you want to attack them for saying Doom was new, then fine. But you can just as easily substitute Doom with Wolfenstein and they would be right.
6th paragraph- Burden of Proof- If you think it takes one good company to change the marketplace, then you need to prove it. Your side of the argument has the burden of needing proof since there are companies like Sir-Tech, Bungie, and Godgames that fit your criteria, and they are either very close to going out of business or have been bought out by a bigger company.
7th paragraph- Ad Hominem/Appeal to Ridicule- The best way to wrap up a completely unfounded and educated argument is to sling some mud.
8th paragraph- And now you talk about not getting whipped up into a frenzy, yet here you are. Not only are you sharing your opinion on it, but you're even making up nonsehnsical arguments about it. I think that constitutes getting whipped up into a frenzy. If you claim not to care, then don't post about it. And if you do, then try to post something with some validity to it. I'm not going to write any more essays explaining these things to closed minded individuals.
If people don't agree with it, then fine, that's their opinion. You're also entitled to your own opinion, as uneducated as it may be. If people do agree with it, then that's their opinion too. What separates people is not what they believe, but how they can back up what they believe. Either way, all I want to do is give the opportunity for those who wish to learn, to learn. Anyone can learn from this regardless of whether they agree with the idea.
Edited, Mon May 31 17:58:45 2004 by DivineWinds
And the word for today is, "fallacy". Now, go and see if you can find places to use todays new word.
OnePrime wrote:
And the word for today is, "fallacy". Now, go and see if you can find places to use todays new word.
Pardon me for making a spelling error. I know my posts are usually so riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes that they are completely illegible...
And while you're sitting on your "holier than thou" throne, can you explain why you have no concept of proper punctuation. Or was that a poor attempt at humor leaving out the apostrophe in today's?
No one is perfect, but if you're going to start proof-reading posts, make sure you check your own posts first...
Edited, Tue Jun 1 02:09:03 2004 by danreynolds
Well I read the whole article although I didn't follow the sub-links.
It seems a patent non-seqitur.
Even if one accepts the initial premise that something is wrong then the solution offered seems nothing to do with the problem.
As an earlier poster said the way for them to prove their point in this existing world is to do it and succeed. If everyone is buying their games (or more likely just taking them) from scratchware outfits then their point is proven.
However suggesting tearing down the entire socio-economic structures we live with in the name of better computer games seems a little disproportionate.
It also suggests that they feel incapable of succeeding in competition and therefore require the existing structures of the gaming industry to be torn down.
The argument is also riddled with self-contradictions which make it very hard to follow.
The key point that really misses the audience was this quote
Pious sentiments but do we all want games that last 15 minutes? It seems particularly stupid looking for support for this on a site that supports one of the biggest time-sink games of all time.
Indeed the relevance of this argument to EQ seems slight to non-existent. Would we all be much happier if we paid our monthly sub to a couple of guys living off food-stamps (whatever they are) in their basement? Would we trust them to keep the game relatively straight? Some things require a certain minimum level of corporate organisation.
It also misses the point about trust. In the early days of gaming (which I remember and even wrote for
) viruses were barely even a consideration, the internet was largely academic, and the stupid games could still louse up your computer with bad coding. Trusting an unknown outfit not to be distributing keyloggers, spyware etc, etc in this day is naive.
The idea of small companies making and distributing decent games is not new and all the pseudo-revolutionary claptrap is unnecessary window-dressing.
It seems a patent non-seqitur.
Even if one accepts the initial premise that something is wrong then the solution offered seems nothing to do with the problem.
As an earlier poster said the way for them to prove their point in this existing world is to do it and succeed. If everyone is buying their games (or more likely just taking them) from scratchware outfits then their point is proven.
However suggesting tearing down the entire socio-economic structures we live with in the name of better computer games seems a little disproportionate.
It also suggests that they feel incapable of succeeding in competition and therefore require the existing structures of the gaming industry to be torn down.
The argument is also riddled with self-contradictions which make it very hard to follow.
The key point that really misses the audience was this quote
Quote:
A scratchware game can be played by virtually anyone who can reach a keyboard and read. Scratchware games are brief (possibly fifteen minutes to an hour or so), extremely replayable, satisfying, challenging, and entertaining.
Pious sentiments but do we all want games that last 15 minutes? It seems particularly stupid looking for support for this on a site that supports one of the biggest time-sink games of all time.
Indeed the relevance of this argument to EQ seems slight to non-existent. Would we all be much happier if we paid our monthly sub to a couple of guys living off food-stamps (whatever they are) in their basement? Would we trust them to keep the game relatively straight? Some things require a certain minimum level of corporate organisation.
It also misses the point about trust. In the early days of gaming (which I remember and even wrote for
) viruses were barely even a consideration, the internet was largely academic, and the stupid games could still louse up your computer with bad coding. Trusting an unknown outfit not to be distributing keyloggers, spyware etc, etc in this day is naive. The idea of small companies making and distributing decent games is not new and all the pseudo-revolutionary claptrap is unnecessary window-dressing.
Wherever I go - there I am.
danreynolds, that post wasn't even meant to be a dig at you, man. Just ignore me. I'm an a-hole anyway. :p
(edited becows i suk at teh inglesh)
Edited, Tue Jun 1 08:45:01 2004 by OnePrime
(edited becows i suk at teh inglesh)
Edited, Tue Jun 1 08:45:01 2004 by OnePrime
9 posts
Thanks for your thought out opinion, Cobra. In my opinion, I don't really agree with the scratchware part myself either, I just couldn't think of a good title for the thread that wouldn't invoke all the children to start yelling "terrist!". I did however, like it mainly for its views on capitalism. Honestly, I think a whole new system of government besides capitalism is necessary to even ensure we have a future that isn't run by corporations and the lust for money.
Our government = Capitalism
Capital = Profit = Money
Our government = Moneyism
Our government = Capitalism
Capital = Profit = Money
Our government = Moneyism
So... Socialism then?
I don't believe that having a goverment that's financially driven is a bad thing at all.
That's one of the reasons we have such high standards of living.
Plus, any government that's not financially motivated will find themselves taking out loans (that will most likely never be repaid, but we tend to be soft when people are suffering) from one that is. So, financial motivation isn't so bad in my book. At least it's motivated by somehting it needs. And that beats the hell out of having people poking into my religious beliefs. They might find out I hide the still in the church.
That's one of the reasons we have such high standards of living.
Plus, any government that's not financially motivated will find themselves taking out loans (that will most likely never be repaid, but we tend to be soft when people are suffering) from one that is. So, financial motivation isn't so bad in my book. At least it's motivated by somehting it needs. And that beats the hell out of having people poking into my religious beliefs. They might find out I hide the still in the church.
Recent Visitors: 146
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (146)
- Forums
- EverQuest
- General Discussion
- Scratchware- The gaming revolution
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC