Computer games VS Porn - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

10/19/2010 02:52:02 PM · #126

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Hmmm ... maybe that culture of American hedonism has been around longer than we think ...

Oh, I think it's always been there. The question is whether it is rising in prominence over time? I actually didn't realize the peace corps was so small. I tried to search around for some data, but couldn't find any, but it's probably too small to reflect societal changes.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

10/19/2010 03:27:35 PM · #127

Originally posted by GeneralE:

from Peace Corps Fast Facts:
...
Gender: 60% female, 40% male
Marital Status: 93% single, 7% married
...

If I ever joined the Peace Corps, it would be to get chicks.

goc

Apple iPhone 4

10/19/2010 03:36:10 PM · #128

yea, one day we saw a small girl on some TV commercial named "Lara" and said to my 7 year old son "Look Lara is on TV !" ... he replied "Croft ?"

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 15:36:29.

10/19/2010 04:17:02 PM · #129

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I thought of the Peace Corps like Paul as an example where contributing to society would be important. It would be interesting to know if participation in the Pace Corps has risen or fallen over the last 40 years. That could be evidence to show one way or the other.

You know what I find more interesting? It's the order of your posts. You seem to always start out with a conclusion of some sort and then when others begin to attack your position you fall back to a more defensible neutral position such as here where you ask what the data shows. As a scientist shouldn't that have been the first thing out of your mouth before you conclude people are less altrustic today than years past?

ETA: Can you see how people might conclude that you just like to collect stats and studies that suit your narrative and omit and ignore things that do not?

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 16:31:06.

10/19/2010 04:55:52 PM · #130

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I thought of the Peace Corps like Paul as an example where contributing to society would be important. It would be interesting to know if participation in the Pace Corps has risen or fallen over the last 40 years. That could be evidence to show one way or the other.

You know what I find more interesting? It's the order of your posts. You seem to always start out with a conclusion of some sort and then when others begin to attack your position you fall back to a more defensible neutral position such as here where you ask what the data shows. As a scientist shouldn't that have been the first thing out of your mouth before you conclude people are less altrustic today than years past?

ETA: Can you see how people might conclude that you just like to collect stats and studies that suit your narrative and omit and ignore things that do not?

You really don't give me a break at all, do you? What you are witnessing is me thinking the issue over and forming hypotheses and how to test them. If I was out to "win" the argument, I would clearly go research the Peace Corps, look to see if the evidence can support my position, then come back and post it only if it does. Instead I point out my hypothesis, note that something like enrollment data for the Peace Corps would be a potential test for the hypothesis, THEN go out and search for the data. That's the honest way to do it. In this case it turns out it's not very good data one way or the other because while I assumed the Peace Corps maybe had 100,000 volunteers, it doesn't even have 8,000. The sample size is too small for a population of 300 million. And did I not go actually search out Tycho's referense to Ferguson? Do I get no credit for that?

But what I find really interesting is you are far more interested in the meta-conversation of how I argue instead of what is actually being discussed. Three of your posts are only interested in this. Most of your posts are just one liners. What's up with that? Why do you contribute like this?

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 17:06:30.

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/19/2010 06:11:47 PM · #131

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ok but that's not what happened earlier. In your very first post you said, "Both are systemic manifestations of the fact our society is based on hedonism." You're labeling that conclusion as fact so is it safe to say you've already collected enough data to close the book on that one?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But what I find really interesting is you are far more interested in the meta-conversation of how I argue instead of what is actually being discussed. Three of your posts are only interested in this. Most of your posts are just one liners. What's up with that? Why do you contribute like this?

You're right, I'm more interested in that because these threads are never debated honestly. It's rant. However, when I do take an interest and make certain observations or ask a question you tend to ignore it like earlier when I asked you without joking what your solution was to fixing the problem of hedonism. Since you said earlier to keep it secular, I thought maybe your solution would involve some secular reasoning rather than the prototypical religious response of just needing to get closer to god.

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 18:14:05.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

10/19/2010 06:48:27 PM · #132

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Mousie:
[quote=johnnyphoto] Actually, photography is completely different from playing video games or watching TV. When you take pictures you have to think creatively, and you are actually producing something... art! When you play video games you create nothing, at least nothing that exists outside of your gamer profile.

I can provide you with so many obvious counter examples that disprove you on precisely this point so easily that it's hardly worth my time. Are you willing to retract this statement?

It's shockingly uninformed, I'm afraid.

I can't believe anyone would even SAY this!!!

Well if it's not worth your time to tell me why I'm wrong then I guess it's not worth my time to type a retraction statement.

Give me one or two examples of how something tangible is created by playing video games, and then I'll reconsider.

Wait? Did you say tangible? Do you mean 'tangible' like the photos you show online? Or do you have to actually print out them for them to become 'real' creativity?

Originally posted by Mousie:

Okay, let's kind of ignore that you've moved the goalposts, despite the very specific "nothing that exists outside of your gamer profile", and prove you wrong the labor intensive way.

Actually, I didn't move the goal posts. My original statement was... "When you play video games you create nothing, at least nothing that exists outside of your gamer profile."

Originally posted by Mousie:

- Any text-based computer game like a MUD/MU* (Multi User [Dungeon]) that allows users to create new content. I've read near novels in those, written by the players.
- Any game like Second Life that allows users to create their own 3-D environments for other players to experience, often massive worlds built almost entirely by the players.
- Any game with creative tools, like Spore, where people design and populate worlds with creatures of their own making
- Any process that takes in-game resources and makes them into 3-D real world objects using fab-at-home object printing techniques or commercial rapid prototyping gear... quite popular for creating toys of *your* online game characters that you've created to represent you. Some people paint them.
- Using game engines to make movies and animations... it even has it's own genre: Machinima
- Any game that provides a sandbox mode for free experimentation
- Any game that has level building tools Like Little Big Planet or Alien Swarm, even better when it's paired with tools for easy online sharing
- Any game where you build teams and rely on social skills, practice, and teamwork to accomplish goals... this can be a hyper-violent WoW/Modern Warfare or a completely non-violent Farmville.

Again, I've never seen anyone takes something "created" from a video game and turn it into something tangible outside of the console/pc. What is "created" in a video game stays in the video game. As a game maker, Mousie, you should know that what is "created" in a game by the player is only done so within the parameters that have been predefined by the programmer. If I lock you in a room with a camera and tell you that you can only take pictures in that room, you would be able to create something. But what if you can only stand where I tell you to stand and you can only point the camera at things I allow you to. That's how most video games work, and in my mind that's not creation but merely "recreation" of what the original game designer already created.

Originally posted by Mousie:

NOW are you willing to retract your statement?

No.

Originally posted by Mousie:

You're wrong because you're WRONG. Notice how heavily I was able to lean on any game that does X.

And you're biased because you make video games.

10/19/2010 07:02:00 PM · #133

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You really don't give me a break at all, do you? What you are witnessing is me thinking the issue over and forming hypotheses and how to test them. If I was out to "win" the argument, I would clearly go research the Peace Corps, look to see if the evidence can support my position, then come back and post it only if it does. Instead I point out my hypothesis, note that something like enrollment data for the Peace Corps would be a potential test for the hypothesis, THEN go out and search for the data. That's the honest way to do it. In this case it turns out it's not very good data one way or the other because while I assumed the Peace Corps maybe had 100,000 volunteers, it doesn't even have 8,000. The sample size is too small for a population of 300 million. And did I not go actually search out Tycho's referense to Ferguson? Do I get no credit for that?

Ok but that's not what happened earlier. In your very first post you said, "Both are systemic manifestations of the fact our society is based on hedonism." You're labeling that conclusion as fact so is it safe to say you've already collected enough data to close the book on that one?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But what I find really interesting is you are far more interested in the meta-conversation of how I argue instead of what is actually being discussed. Three of your posts are only interested in this. Most of your posts are just one liners. What's up with that? Why do you contribute like this?

You're right, I'm more interested in that because these threads are never debated honestly. It's rant. However, when I do take an interest and make certain observations or ask a question you tend to ignore it like earlier when I asked you without joking what your solution was to fixing the problem of hedonism. Since you said earlier to keep it secular, I thought maybe your solution would involve some secular reasoning rather than the prototypical religious response of just needing to get closer to god.

Ya, I saw that post Richard, but honestly, I don't have time to post a thousand word response (and the answer, which I'm sure I don't even entirely have, would be that complex) for a three word question from a person who loves to leave one liners. The risk that I actually spend some time for a thought out answer and the answer is simply ignored or I get another three word quip back. Sorry if that stereotypes you, but I think that must be a bit of just desserts.

I'm not sure there is an answer to your question. Once the genie is out of the bottle, I'm not sure it can be put back in. Cultures have a limited shelf life and ours won't last forever. Perhaps this is the root of our undoing and there is nothing we can do about it. How's that for a happy answer?

10/19/2010 07:22:27 PM · #134

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Again, I've never seen anyone takes something "created" from a video game and turn it into something tangible outside of the console/pc. What is "created" in a video game stays in the video game.

I'd suggest you take a more deeper and wider look really. I can think of a few examples. My sister-in-law is an artist/academic who did much of her PHD on games and gaming, often working with school children. She has done a lot but one thing she did was using games and robots and industrial wasteland. Basically she set up a game in which school children, from schools in UK and Canada, played and through the game designed houses and living spaces. These designs were then physically traced over toxic industrial wasteland in Canada by a robot. There were, of course, quite tangible results from this with educational and political goals. I realise that this is quite a specific project but i do think there are many 'tangible' results from using the more common games that

Mousie listed. As others have said in this thread, hand-eye co-ordination, problem solving, education etc. I really don't think you can write off video games as non-worthy because they don't produce 'tangible' results unless you are also going to write off literature, theatre and film. Doesn't make sense.

As to the Religion thing that keeps popping up. I think if the argument goes something like this...

'Violent video games are bad and are detrimental to Society.'

'What? For every game maker and player?'

'No. Obviously not for everyone. But for a small percentage they incite behaviour that is detrimental to Society'

Then it is obvious that you can replace 'game' with 'religion'.

I do realise that no one has said that religion is an answer to any increasing hedonism that is destroying society but i figured that in this thread it is sometimes in the background. I don't think religious, or any, suppression or repression of hedonism and sexuality is an answer. History shows us where that lies (very imaginative torture instruments for one).

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 19:23:26.

10/19/2010 07:46:03 PM · #135

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

As to the Religion thing that keeps popping up. I think if the argument goes something like this...

'Violent video games are bad and are detrimental to Society.'

'What? For every game maker and player?'

'No. Obviously not for everyone. But for a small percentage they incite behaviour that is detrimental to Society'

Then it is obvious that you can replace 'game' with 'religion'.

Please let's keep religion out of this conversation, which is interesting. But I'll draw one line of delineation between religion and video games. Let's just assume you are correct with the idea religion causes a small % of people to act in a detrimental way to society. To balance that it would be just as reasonable to assume that a small % of people greatly benefit society because of their religion. The response, in other words, is variable. The argument is different for violent video games. While there is controversy about how big the negative impact of violent video games is, nobody is making the argument that violent video games also are beneficial to society. At best they are neutral. This, I think precludes you from being able to "replace 'game' with 'religion'" as you say.

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 19:46:28.

10/19/2010 07:54:43 PM · #136

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

An excerpt or a simple I don't know would have sufficed. However I gather brevity is not your strong suit. Please note the multiple lines used.

10/19/2010 07:58:37 PM · #137

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Please let's keep religion out of this conversation, which is interesting.

Yes, fair enough. I know you didn't bring it in but it was kind of suggested in a couple of posts.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

While there is controversy about how big the negative impact of violent video games is, nobody is making the argument that violent video games also are beneficial to society. At best they are neutral. This, I think precludes you from being able to "replace 'game' with 'religion'" as you say.

Well, i think many people are making that claim (although i get your point that that is not what the thread was started about) . I can certainly see how video games are beneficial to society in many ways.

10/19/2010 07:59:53 PM · #138

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Please let's keep religion out of this conversation, which is interesting.

Yes, fair enough. I know you didn't bring it in but it was kind of suggested in a couple of posts.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While there is controversy about how big the negative impact of violent video games is, nobody is making the argument that violent video games also are beneficial to society. At best they are neutral. This, I think precludes you from being able to "replace 'game' with 'religion'" as you say.

Well, i think many people are making that claim (although i get your point that that is not what the thread was started about) . I can certainly see how video games are beneficial to society in many ways.

Make sure we're either talking about "video games" or "violent video games". I got no problem with the former. So the question would be how would the latter be beneficial because of their violence? In other words, what do you gain that you couldn't also gain from a non-violent video game?

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 20:00:33.

10/19/2010 08:11:06 PM · #139

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
As to the Religion thing that keeps popping up. I think if the argument goes something like this...

'Violent video games are bad and are detrimental to Society.'

'What? For every game maker and player?'

'No. Obviously not for everyone. But for a small percentage they incite behaviour that is detrimental to Society'

Then it is obvious that you can replace 'game' with 'religion'.

Please let's keep religion out of this conversation, which is interesting. But I'll draw one line of delineation between religion and video games. Let's just assume you are correct with the idea religion causes a small % of people to act in a detrimental way to society. To balance that it would be just as reasonable to assume that a small % of people greatly benefit society because of their religion. The response, in other words, is variable. The argument is different for violent video games. While there is controversy about how big the negative impact of violent video games is, nobody is making the argument that violent video games also are beneficial to society. At best they are neutral. This, I think precludes you from being able to "replace 'game' with 'religion'" as you say.

This is some odd logic here. Just because religion may yield some benefits says absolutely nothing about whether it fully cancels out the negatives it brings. The fact that we haven't had a single war started by a bunch of video game players uniting together might suggest that it's more benign, less damaging than religion which has brought many to its deaths throughout the ages.

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 20:12:13.

10/19/2010 08:15:01 PM · #140

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
As to the Religion thing that keeps popping up. I think if the argument goes something like this...

'Violent video games are bad and are detrimental to Society.'

'What? For every game maker and player?'

'No. Obviously not for everyone. But for a small percentage they incite behaviour that is detrimental to Society'

Then it is obvious that you can replace 'game' with 'religion'.

Please let's keep religion out of this conversation, which is interesting. But I'll draw one line of delineation between religion and video games. Let's just assume you are correct with the idea religion causes a small % of people to act in a detrimental way to society. To balance that it would be just as reasonable to assume that a small % of people greatly benefit society because of their religion. The response, in other words, is variable. The argument is different for violent video games. While there is controversy about how big the negative impact of violent video games is, nobody is making the argument that violent video games also are beneficial to society. At best they are neutral. This, I think precludes you from being able to "replace 'game' with 'religion'" as you say.

This is some odd logic here. Just because religion may yield some benefits says absolutely nothing about whether it fully cancels out the negatives it brings. The fact that we haven't had a single war started by a bunch of video game players uniting together might suggest that it's more benign, less damaging than religion which has brought many to its deaths throughout the ages.

If you don't want to see the benefits religion can bring I'll never make you see. I could talk until I'm blue in the face, so it's no use and I said I didn't want to bring religion into the debate anyway. So, I'm not ignoring you, but I'm just going to let it go.

On another page, I'm not making this up, but literally today a writer at ESPN had this to say. Is it apropos to the conversation?

Originally posted by ESPN:

Most football fans are horrified when a player falls to the turf motionless. But some aren't -- consciously or subconsciously, they want to see harm. Presenting painful mayhem as "entertainment" goes at least as far back as the Roman Colosseum.

Hollywood eagerly markets to the desire to watch violent harm, but movie violence is fake. Has the NFL been slow to enforce head-protection standards because the owners think the occasional player carted off unconscious makes the game edgy and dangerous, appealing to fans who want all-too-real violence? There is real violence in prizefighting, too -- the dark side of boxing's appeal. But only a tiny number of people engage in prizefighting, while each year about 1 million play football, most of them high school boys. The NFL not doing everything possible to prevent head injury sets an awful example for the high school players who model themselves on what they see in the pros.

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 20:15:49.

10/19/2010 08:18:23 PM · #141

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, i put video games on equal relevance and worth as literature, theatre , film. Art really. I believe that video games can, and occasionally does, function as that. Admittedly video games hasn't produced a Ulysses or a Crime & Punishment or a Citizen Kane yet but i'd say it's only a matter of time. And i think that in terms of education and art it has some very good tries.

So taking that into account in terms of violence i would look at what people gain from violent art, literature and film. And i would say a huge amount. Art, after all, functions as both a mirror or, according to Brecht, a hammer in which to smash it. I don't think society benefits at all from a suppression or censorship of violence in art and literature and i don't think it would benefit from the same in video games. Particularly in a very violent war torn world.

Plus, you know, zombie shooting practice and shit.

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 21:22:49.

10/19/2010 08:21:32 PM · #142

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
As to the Religion thing that keeps popping up. I think if the argument goes something like this...

'Violent video games are bad and are detrimental to Society.'

'What? For every game maker and player?'

'No. Obviously not for everyone. But for a small percentage they incite behaviour that is detrimental to Society'

Then it is obvious that you can replace 'game' with 'religion'.

Please let's keep religion out of this conversation, which is interesting. But I'll draw one line of delineation between religion and video games. Let's just assume you are correct with the idea religion causes a small % of people to act in a detrimental way to society. To balance that it would be just as reasonable to assume that a small % of people greatly benefit society because of their religion. The response, in other words, is variable. The argument is different for violent video games. While there is controversy about how big the negative impact of violent video games is, nobody is making the argument that violent video games also are beneficial to society. At best they are neutral. This, I think precludes you from being able to "replace 'game' with 'religion'" as you say.

This is some odd logic here. Just because religion may yield some benefits says absolutely nothing about whether it fully cancels out the negatives it brings. The fact that we haven't had a single war started by a bunch of video game players uniting together might suggest that it's more benign, less damaging than religion which has brought many to its deaths throughout the ages.

If you don't want to see the benefits religion can bring I'll never make you see. I could talk until I'm blue in the face, so it's no use and I said I didn't want to bring religion into the debate anyway. So, I'm not ignoring you, but I'm just going to let it go.

No that wasn't the point. The point was whether the good it does overrides the bad. If we are going to go after video games for the violence it promotes/causes we can't ignore the much bigger fish out there. That's assuming of course we truly want to live in a more peaceful society.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

On another page, I'm not making this up, but literally today a writer at ESPN had this to say. Is it apropos to the conversation?

[quote=ESPN]Most football fans are horrified when a player falls to the turf motionless. But some aren't -- consciously or subconsciously, they want to see harm. Presenting painful mayhem as "entertainment" goes at least as far back as the Roman Colosseum.

Hollywood eagerly markets to the desire to watch violent harm, but movie violence is fake. Has the NFL been slow to enforce head-protection standards because the owners think the occasional player carted off unconscious makes the game edgy and dangerous, appealing to fans who want all-too-real violence? There is real violence in prizefighting, too -- the dark side of boxing's appeal. But only a tiny number of people engage in prizefighting, while each year about 1 million play football, most of them high school boys. The NFL not doing everything possible to prevent head injury sets an awful example for the high school players who model themselves on what they see in the pros.

Yeah I saw the hit they are referring to. Violence is not only tolerated but enjoyed in this country. I certainly see it as a problem. Where we differ is on the cause...

Edited for clarity.

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 20:28:42.

10/19/2010 08:30:40 PM · #143

Originally posted by yanko:

No that wasn't the point. The point was whether the good it does overrides the bad.

Well, at the risk of pulling a Tycho I'll refer you to a book called In Defense of Faith written by a jewish author named David Brog (like a dyslexic Borg). He'll give you a whole book saying the good does override the bad. But, I'm guessing in this cynical world some of our minds are already made up.

Originally posted by yanko:

Yeah I saw the hit they are referring to. Violence is not only tolerated but enjoyed in this country. I certainly see it as a problem. Where we differ is on the cause...

Fair enough. In our IM conversation, did you ever give me your take on the cause? I remember you said it was a reaction to conservative values, but I don't know if that was really what you thought "the cause" was. I'm open to a paragraph or two on your position.

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 20:30:56.

10/19/2010 08:42:31 PM · #144

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... If you ask people why they work, they answer to make money to go on vacation or buy things. They do not work to contribute to society or help others, etc. Their motivation has changed. ...

What year was it that people answered this quesiton, "To contribute to society or help others, etc."?

That was my reaction also. Since when has a majority, or even a significant plurality, of people in a society, any society, worked for those stated purposes?

R.

I'm still interested in your thoughts on this Doc. I don't think there ever has been such a Western society really. Or any society perhaps. What it boils down to i guess is Sex & Death and how different cultures explore those themes. Because, after all, there isn't any human population that can not be obsessed with them to a large degree.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

10/19/2010 09:02:38 PM · #145

I do have a question that I kinda implied earlier but was skipped over in favor of the structured arguments...

Seriously, what is our society's take-away? Of course there's the whole electricity thing and all that brings, but in real world terms of mankind and how we relate to each other, govern amongst ourselves, engage in entertainment... what, fundamentally, has changed since the empires of the Romans and the Greeks? Have we done anything grander? Or do we all just still find our way from the start of each day to the end, then get up the next day and try that one more time.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

10/19/2010 09:05:37 PM · #146

Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... If you ask people why they work, they answer to make money to go on vacation or buy things. They do not work to contribute to society or help others, etc. Their motivation has changed. ...

What year was it that people answered this quesiton, "To contribute to society or help others, etc."?

That was my reaction also. Since when has a majority, or even a significant plurality, of people in a society, any society, worked for those stated purposes?

R.

I'm still interested in your thoughts on this Doc. I don't think there ever has been such a Western society really. Or any society perhaps. What it boils down to i guess is Sex & Death and how different cultures explore those themes. Because, after all, there isn't any human population that can not be obsessed with them to a large degree.

Someone who "contributes to society" is just doing it for selfish reasons anyway... ego, fun, sex, whatever. I might believe someone is sincere if they die for a stranger and nobody ever knows about it (unless they're expecting 57 virgins in the afterlife or some such insanity). Humanity. Meh.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

10/19/2010 09:09:03 PM · #147

Originally posted by Melethia:

... do we all just still find our way from the start of each day to the end, then get up the next day and try that one more time.

Add in some hedonism and it's FTW. ;-)

Mousie

10/19/2010 09:12:15 PM · #148

"When you play video games you create nothing, at least nothing that exists outside of your gamer profile."

is not equal to:

"Show me something tangible."

Ergo, you have moved the goalposts.

There's a shit-ton of stuff created in games "outside the gamer's profile". Again:

- Any text-based computer game that allows users to create new content.

(Not in a profile, it's the game itself that's being extended)

- Any game that allows users to create their own 3-D environments.

(Not in a profile, it's the game itself that's being extended)

- Any game with creative tools where people design and populate worlds with creatures of their own making.

(Not in a profile, it's the game itself that's being extended)

- Any process that takes in-game resources and makes them into real world objects using fab-at-home object printing techniques or commercial rapid prototyping gear.

(Not in a profile, REAL WORLD TANGIBLE OBJECTS)

- Machinima.

(Not in a profile, MOVIES, TV SHOWS, ANIMATIONS)

- Any game that provides a sandbox mode for free experimentation.

(Not in a profile, and created purely with your imagination and the tools at hand)

- Any game that has level building tools.

(Not in a profile, it's the game itself that's being extended)

- Any game where you build teams and rely on social skills, practice, and teamwork to accomplish goals.

(Not in a profile, and REAL WORLD EFFECTS ON SKILL AND RELATIONSHIPS)

There. I just repeated a ton of stuff, including tangible objects, that are created outside a gamer's profile, and created IN GAMES. Creativity. In games.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Never seen any? I've already listed some. Using your ignorance of the others as an argument is not particularly useful at this point.

I've also pointed out sandboxes. From Wiki: "some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives." The designers do not set up everything you can do. They set up a world with physical rules and populate it with objects, and let you have at it. You know, just like the real world. No control. No goal. No predictability.

You operate within the parameters of real world physics every day. Does that makes you less creative?

You operate within the parameters of DPC challenges. Does that make you less creative?

Myself, I find constraints to evoke MORE creativity at times. Working within a context instead of adrift in a sea of endless possibility gives me ideas.

Let's take a closer look at Second Life, just to prove a point. You suggest that game developers tightly control their user's experience. Here are the tools they give you in SL: Polygon modeling tools, texturing tools, scripting tools. That's some tight control right there... free reign to build whatever you want from the ground up, defining shape, color, behavior, physics... you can even build crap as big as a city if you dedicate the time. People make money in-game by creating tools, toys, and works of art to sell to other people in the game. There's a freakin' market for well crafted goods! You're evaluated for your *craftsmanship.* And just to kick it over the edge: People have been printing their SL creations on rapid prototyping tools for years, making them real! Just export a mesh! They have converters for all sorts of game's 3D models these days.

//www.secondlifeinsider.com/tag/Rapid+Prototyping/

Is seeing believing?

Or how about Eve Online... where it's not objects being created but literally *corporations* of people with 1000's of members distributed around the globe, all performing their niche roles to secure and exploit in-game geography and resources. There are fascinating articles online about the real-world politics, treaties, feuds, spying, even corporate espionage taking place outside of the game in the service of in-game goals. Eve simply gives you space, supply, and demand. The people playing it are the ones forming social organizations... ethical businesses, unethical businesses, police forces, marauding bands of pirates, it's a near complete microcosm of unregulated business practices.

Or how about in China, where the line between in-game and real world currency has gotten so blurry that people make careers out of 'gold' farming, and clever businessmen have literally manipulated the exchange rates to make real money and influence real politics!!!

I could keep going and going and going... even though I haven't worked on a game in the last decade.

SO! I've noticed you've even backpedaled in your disagreement... now it's not how 'most' games are written, eh? So you're willfully ignoring the multitude of games that are written that way, because they're inconvenient?

Is making a TV show not a creative endeavor because you can only watch it on a TV? Your 'you can only see it in a game' argument, while untrue on it's face (see: Machinima, they're all over YouTube!), is completely irrelevant. What is the tangible of a TV show? The recording on tape? Games are recorded in memory and on disk... every change I make in game a makes a small, corresponding physical change in some electrical or magnetic media at some point. Not artistic, for sure, but certainly tangible.

I just can't believe how wrong you are.

And this has nothing to do with bias. If it's bias you should be able to refute my facts.

But I linked pictures. Good luck with that.

Message edited by author 2010-10-19 21:38:36.

10/19/2010 09:12:44 PM · #149

Originally posted by Melethia:

Or do we all just still find our way from the start of each day to the end, then get up the next day and try that one more time.

Yep. The myth of progress.

I can't go on. I go on.

Remind me to lend you some E.M Cioran books if we ever meet Deb. I think you'd like them. ;)

Mousie