|
| Thread: On a mission to save the world? Should we or not? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted March 12, 2016 12:04 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:51, 12 Mar 2016.
|
If you lived in the middle-ages, famine, war, disease wouldn't be even something to mention, they were regular facts of life. You would have 5-8 children and most of them would die before reaching the age of five, you would be considered lucky to see the age of 45 yourself, the only thing you eat through the winter would be the same rock-hard bread every day. Statistically, you would probably be illiterate, most of your teeth would be missing and you would never leave the village you were born in and see anything other than it's surroundings.
There is also absolutely nothing to suggest that there is a moral decline compared to earlier societies. That's usually overzealous religious people crying about their own religion losing its status quo. Yet, when we look at countries with the least crime rate, least violence and most productive social order, they are usually the wealthy Nordic countries with big budgets on education and they are also the countries with the least religiosity. Of course, some will interpret the changing of moral norms (such as gay marriage or sex without wedlock becoming routine) as moral decline but that would be their own problem. Moral standards of societies reshaped ever since the beginning of civilization with or without religion and they will keep on doing so as the conditions keep changing. Just 150 years ago, United Kingdom was the peak of a colonial civilization and they were
hanging dozens by the week for stealing bread. Only 70 years ago, your average citizen was openly racist to some degree. It is still considered okay to beat children in some societies. People were never saints, that doesn't mean they are scum of the earth either.
The really new issues are about overpopulation and environment and as real as they are, I don't see them as catastrophic as, say, the whole human population decreasing to 3000-10000 people due to a volcanic eruption about 75000 years ago. Or like the black plague of medieval times which wiped out one third of the population in Europe. No matter how hard global warming hits, I don't think we'll decrease to 10000 people with today's ecological counter measures and technology. At least not in the foreseeable future. And most of the conditions that people are worried about that global warming can put us into, are still way better compared to the life of a farmer from 2000 B.C.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 05:40 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 05:42, 12 Mar 2016.
|
Holy **** mvass thanks for that FBI site.
I found these on facebook lol
I want to enjoy life. I am going to try to find a job that helps the world
____________
What are you up to
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 07:03 AM |
|
|
how advanced a society is can be measured by the health of its people, not how many.
quality > quantity.
nature is only cruel if you take a limited perspective within the system, in whole she is objectively quite harmonious.
the first and second worlds removing their molars and becoming addicted to pharmaceutical opiates is nothing short of mass degeneration - a shrunken skull is not evolution, its symptomatic of malnutritioned, drug-induced mothers.
rural > urban
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html#ch17
does nobody know about detroit or flint?
genocide has been succeeded by genetic dilution and sterilization.
we are in world war 3 right now.
racism is rampant within our leaders.
africa is being raped.
america is the concentration camp.
food sources are being poisoned and stifled.
wars are no longer fought for land with weapons, but for the minds of the people atop it. money is the weapon, used to sway populations via control over food sources, education, standards of living, and media.
tyrannical regimes historically "provoke warfare and use their guards to remove the best social elements and individuals from their own nation so as to retain power (since they pose a threat), while leaving the worst".
aka: the draft. the world wars.
recommended reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)#Book_VIII
sentinel island is looking more appealing by the day.
hc does offer nice respite from the battle though.
be as healthy as you can. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 07:26 AM |
|
|
Well, health can mean physical health or mental well-being which is mostly about happiness. When it comes to physical health, we are improving. Life is getting longer even in the poorer countries and a lot of the people you talk about wouldn't even be able to exist a few centuries ago in the first place to begin with. There wasn't modern farming, so it was less food, there wasn't any antibiotics or vaccines, getting sick mostly meant instant death. You can't expect to populate triple of how you used to and then cure and feed everybody with the same resources. And although imperialism did not vanish, I'd say it is less ruthless compared to 18th or 19th century when it was directly about slave trade and conquered people openly labeled as second-class subjects by law.
And of course, happiness and extinction are different subjects. If the subject shifts to doomsday and extinction, then numbers do matter. That's why I mentioned it. When it comes to happiness, I don't see historical progress as a straight line that makes people happier and happier each passing century either. Modern times has its own problems when it comes to happiness, such as alienation, overwork, pollution etc. In old times, people were mostly raised to "take it as it comes" and they didn't expect to be exceptionally happy all the time anyway. Today, capitalist ethics urge you to always want more and that creates a permanent thirst for more in many people, which turns happiness into something almost impossible to achieve.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 07:40 AM |
|
|
Raenus said:
Quote:
To think that:
1. 1% of the world is so much smarter than the rest that they need to act as shepherds for the poor plebians.
2. You are part of the said 1% because you are well read on what is posted on the internet.
3. Just because people enjoy their lives and don't actively resist whatever you want them to that they are going to destroy the world.
I'm not 100% if this is directed towards me. But there are countless probs in the world. I don't want to go on a list spree, but a few examples are as such:
Our food:
GMOs: - MY personal opinion here is that if the modifications were in the interest of health and prolonging life of the food or us then it would be okay, but the agendas of the corporations are far beyond corruption at the level of simply seeking debt (CASH). I would not be shocked if they are attempting to figure more scientific data so they can selectively control population on a massive scale. The truth is out there. They could push for cures but they push for oil and war. They could invest in technology and a better system but they don't.
Quote:
Your thinking in my opinion is exactly what leads to characters like Hitler. People who think they need to make the world a better place inevitably end up driving it into the ground.
I am not going to bash you here but I will correct the way I am seen here. I don't kill for one thing but that doesn't seem to be your point. I am not really saying there does or should exist a 1% who have some kind of superior understanding and should have the power over the rest either. But a great majority of the people in this world have really accepted a particular view which is inferior and I admit that is how I feel. I empathize because I have not only been there but my core behaviors often times are in that same alignment. I too am brainwashed to a degree. If a small portion of the worlds mass population stood up with a voice of authority and confronted our leaders under the spotlight of the world, and we followed the general universal principals without bias and what not, then we would have our day.
But there is no hitler traits in me. No superior blend of humans.
Quote:
Every generation thinks that the world is being destroyed. There have been doomsayers for as long as there have been humans. Unfortunately doomsayers have become quite popular with the advent of the internet. This is exacerbated by the fact that news with a negative slant is much more popular than positive news.
Good point but this in no ways defends the facts of the matter.
We are facing a very potential end and soon
We are killing the world
We are devestating the road called existence which has fostered us this far, and we are tearing down beyond trillions of innocent life forms.
We Are Not living up to our potential.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 08:25 AM |
|
|
recommended watching: thx 1138
Celfious said:
We Are Not living up to our potential.
speak for yourself
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 11:12 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
If they get more enjoyment that way, what's wrong with it? I speak from experience when I say that getting stuck in a game is quite frustrating, and it's nice that there are abundant online resources that help me avoid it. Some people enjoy the challenge, but I prefer to progress unimpeded and just enjoy the experience. It's why I don't play puzzle games and also why I cheat in World Builder every time I play Civ IV.
It's kind of annoying that "playing games should be a struggle" has become such a popular opinion. Different people get different things out of gaming.
Because due to people's laziness, video game design has took a turn for the worse. Games (it's especially obvious in RPG genre) are developed shorter, with less to read, less to do, and this is sadly a fact. If a game is too hard for you, don't play it? how did you do it in 90s with no internet and no online solutions to look for? 
Why is it so hard to implement an easy/story mode the way BG:EE creators decided to do, instead of dumbing down everything? If you want to stroll through the game, fine. That's what difficulty options should be for. Not making the core game casual-only.
Even difficulty levels nowadays are more like : infant-extreme casual-casual, and not easy-normal-hard.
And of course there are exceptions, but that's the way it goes in general.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 11:27 AM |
|
|
Doomforge said:
Because due to people's laziness, video game design has took a turn for the worse. Games (it's especially obvious in RPG genre) are developed shorter, with less to read, less to do, and this is sadly a fact. If a game is too hard for you, don't play it? how did you do it in 90s with no internet and no online solutions to look for?
Too true lol
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 12:03 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:04, 12 Mar 2016.
|
Galaad said:
Doomforge said:
Because due to people's laziness, video game design has took a turn for the worse. Games (it's especially obvious in RPG genre) are developed shorter, with less to read, less to do, and this is sadly a fact. If a game is too hard for you, don't play it? how did you do it in 90s with no internet and no online solutions to look for?
Too true lol
I think it also has a lot to do with how much people spend their time on EACH game. Back in those days, you spent months on a game, not just because they were harder but also because they weren't popping out like sausage from a factory. Isn't it the same with a lot of things? You bought an album, you spent a week listening to it, now you have thousands of them within the reach of a click. How many movies did you watch in a week time before the internet? And I'm not talking about going to the cinema, there was a limit to how many you could rent. So each one had more of your attention (span). Put aside exceptions, why aren't those 3000 page classics written anymore?
Back in those days, when people got stuck in a game, they were more patient about solving things because there weren't 30 other alternatives just around the corner. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, but it affects a lot when it comes to how people design things they want to sell.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 01:44 PM |
|
|
Everyone enjoys their games differently. For example, I found out recently that "save-scumming" through XCOM 2 made the game a lot more enjoyable to me since it turned every encounter into a problem to be solved. Continually re-trying the same parts to find the optimal solution? felt much more satisfying then it would've otherwise and I'm happy I discovered that.
---
If you truly want change. If you truly want the world to get better, Listen to the people who are already working for that. the next time someone says they have a problem with the status quo or how the world works or similar, listen. Even if you don't see the problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist and the first step to improvement is realizing there is a problem in the first place.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 12, 2016 04:36 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:38, 12 Mar 2016.
|
Quote:
Because due to people's laziness, video game design has took a turn for the worse. Games (it's especially obvious in RPG genre) are developed shorter, with less to read, less to do, and this is sadly a fact. If a game is too hard for you, don't play it? how did you do it in 90s with no internet and no online solutions to look for?
Why is it so hard to implement an easy/story mode the way BG:EE creators decided to do, instead of dumbing down everything? If you want to stroll through the game, fine. That's what difficulty options should be for. Not making the core game casual-only.
Even difficulty levels nowadays are more like : infant-extreme casual-casual, and not easy-normal-hard.
And of course there are exceptions, but that's the way it goes in general.
The true challenge (and I see we are developing two distinct topics) for a developer is to make a game that can appeal to players of all different preferences and gaming styles. Creating a game like is not only a good business decision, but it's also the very opposite of lazy. It's hard to get that formula right, of course, which is why there are a lot of bad video games out there - rather than excelling at one thing, they fail trying to succeed at too many. Dark Souls is interesting in that it has an extremely narrow demographic in mind, and succeeds very well at pleasing them. This is what also keeps it from being a great all around game, however. (The sad thing is that making it appeal to a larger group of people could be so easy; for some reason though the people it appeals to now feel that to broaden its appeal would be limiting its greatness.) What really annoys me is when people who enjoy very difficult games look down at people who don't enjoy very difficult games, condescendingly call them "not serious" or "kiddies" or whatever. It's insulting and supposes that there's only one way to enjoy gaming, or that everyone's tastes are the same. But let's face it, I wager MOST people who play games aren't looking for 80's style difficulty. Video games used to be targeted almost exclusively toward people (males) in their teens. Now video gamers include everyone from teens to fifty and sixty year olds - people who have kids, people who have families, singles, women, and so forth. Video game developers have a much harder job now than they used to because they have so many more potential demographics, so I don't think it's fair to call developers today "lazy". It's a ramification of the changes in the business. I don't even think the business strategy by developers has really changed. Most developers have the strategy that they can maximize profits by reaching as many customers as possible - it's just that the customer base has changed over the last two decades, so game development has changed accordingly. It makes sense that they would design games to have lower difficulty than they used to - because the average gamer isn't looking for really difficult games any more.
Mostly, I don't see why game development has to be a zero sum game. If developers were truly not lazy, they would figure out better ways to please more people. But, we also just need to accept that not every game is going to please everyone. And if you are in a minority demographic - like, let's be honest, the subsection that loves very difficult games - your options are going to be restricted compared to the options for those who are closer to the community average. From Software targets their games to the fringe of "hard core" gamers, if you want to use the language they have hijacked. No amount of lamenting from me or others like me seems likely to change that. But, on the flip side, it's also not fair to expect every game, or even the majority of them, to cater to your specific needs, either.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
phe
Famous Hero
Life and Freedom
|
|
posted March 14, 2016 10:52 AM |
|
|
There are issues for big shame for mankind:
Dishonesty and crimes of politicians, armies, secret services....(They don't respect the law which they are obliged to follow. They should be severe punished)
Catastrophes organized by big powers mainly USA (earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, floods, catastrophes and collisions of cars, trains, planes, ships, shootings and other deaths)
Mistreating people by mind control
Poverty on world and lack of prespectives for people caused by socialism, debts made by financists and corrupted and feckless politicians
Toleration of criminality and corruption
Toleration of sexual criminality (prostitution and homosexualism in many countries)
Abortion (terrible genocide on most innocent and defenceless people - unborn caused by laziness and rudeness)
Use of animals and mistreating them (they are beings too)
We should not vote, we should protest to end with all of these...to stop this catastrophes and deaths, to not give permission or tolerance for all of it...all these politicians, military men and secret services officials responsible for this should be executed...the same about criminals...we should get rid of debts all over the world...abortion and use of animals should be abolished....technologies of antigravity, fusion and other should be implemented...let's start space age at last...
New principle should be implemented that people should not take advantage on other people and beings(animals)...
Best people should rule...Monarchy with this principle is inevitable...Democracy is obsolete...
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted March 14, 2016 04:06 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 16:11, 14 Mar 2016.
|
Corribus said:
The true challenge (and I see we are developing two distinct topics) for a developer is to make a game that can appeal to players of all different preferences and gaming styles. Creating a game like is not only a good business decision, but it's also the very opposite of lazy. It's hard to get that formula right, of course, which is why there are a lot of bad video games out there - rather than excelling at one thing, they fail trying to succeed at too many. Dark Souls is interesting in that it has an extremely narrow demographic in mind, and succeeds very well at pleasing them. This is what also keeps it from being a great all around game, however. (The sad thing is that making it appeal to a larger group of people could be so easy; for some reason though the people it appeals to now feel that to broaden its appeal would be limiting its greatness.) What really annoys me is when people who enjoy very difficult games look down at people who don't enjoy very difficult games, condescendingly call them "not serious" or "kiddies" or whatever. It's insulting and supposes that there's only one way to enjoy gaming, or that everyone's tastes are the same. But let's face it, I wager MOST people who play games aren't looking for 80's style difficulty. Video games used to be targeted almost exclusively toward people (males) in their teens. Now video gamers include everyone from teens to fifty and sixty year olds - people who have kids, people who have families, singles, women, and so forth. Video game developers have a much harder job now than they used to because they have so many more potential demographics, so I don't think it's fair to call developers today "lazy". It's a ramification of the changes in the business. I don't even think the business strategy by developers has really changed. Most developers have the strategy that they can maximize profits by reaching as many customers as possible - it's just that the customer base has changed over the last two decades, so game development has changed accordingly. It makes sense that they would design games to have lower difficulty than they used to - because the average gamer isn't looking for really difficult games any more.
Mostly, I don't see why game development has to be a zero sum game. If developers were truly not lazy, they would figure out better ways to please more people. But, we also just need to accept that not every game is going to please everyone. And if you are in a minority demographic - like, let's be honest, the subsection that loves very difficult games - your options are going to be restricted compared to the options for those who are closer to the community average. From Software targets their games to the fringe of "hard core" gamers, if you want to use the language they have hijacked. No amount of lamenting from me or others like me seems likely to change that. But, on the flip side, it's also not fair to expect every game, or even the majority of them, to cater to your specific needs, either.
But that is why there is difficulty settings, from easy to hardcore, so that anyone can play at his level. But IMO the failure about more recent games is that companies are more trying to sell than to create something truly thought through. The irony I see is there is bigger chance to come up with a best seller if what the creators aim is to make the most awesome game ever instead of trying to rely on a fast cash formula. Of course that does not apply to all games, but I recall how difficult some NES games were -granted, sometimes frustrating (who didn't throw his controller with extreme rage on the ground)- but as well extremely addictive. I recall when we couldn't even save progression! Games were not only for entertainment, but also for training and challenging one skills and intelligence, through entertainment. Now I have the feeling it is just another way to dumb down the level of general population, games like Resident Evil in example were each ammunition was crucial and not to waste back in the days now are unlimited in the most recent titles or so I've heard.
I don't think people want impossible games, but games that take the player seriously and address more his capacities than his wallet.
I think if in our era the average gamer is not looking for any particular challenge when playing as you say, the fault is not directly theirs, but a direct consequence of what they have been accustomed to. And the spectrum goes beyond gaming, look at TV: when it first appeared its first concern was to provide 1. information, 2. culture, and lastly entertainment. Now times have changed and entertainment comes first, then information and very last culture.
It is just the way our society evolved, around direct pleasure and fast self profit, masses are not being addressed in a way to have humankind evolve, industries and companies only target money as if it was all that matters, and usually the more stupid it is the better for them. Ohforfsake was mentioning education somewhere else, and that made me think, why people don't want to learn? Now has become rare to make efforts, to try to surpass oneself, all needs to be done fast without slightest amount of sweat. Take cinema as another example, Bergman or Tarkovski like movies? If they happen the promotion is almost inexistent and the movie will be available in a small theater for one month and that's it. Same goes with literature, music, even architecture and any form of art, technology also is not being used for the greater good. My best friend is a scientist genius and once he told me we could be so much more advanced, but like really, but again we aren't because it always narrows it down to the same reason/obstacle: business. Politics, again is the same, so-called democratic systems allowing citizens to "vote between a douche and a turd". I think money is enslaving the whole humanity and majority of people (myself included) will always prefer to go the easy way, it's in human nature.
In my opinion specifics needs are under constant influence, and each person will reflect the environment he's living in or surrounded by.
artu said:
I think it also has a lot to do with how much people spend their time on EACH game. Back in those days, you spent months on a game, not just because they were harder but also because they weren't popping out like sausage from a factory. Isn't it the same with a lot of things? You bought an album, you spent a week listening to it, now you have thousands of them within the reach of a click. How many movies did you watch in a week time before the internet? And I'm not talking about going to the cinema, there was a limit to how many you could rent. So each one had more of your attention (span). Put aside exceptions, why aren't those 3000 page classics written anymore?
Back in those days, when people got stuck in a game, they were more patient about solving things because there weren't 30 other alternatives just around the corner. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, but it affects a lot when it comes to how people design things they want to sell.
That's a very good point, quantity over quality, sadly.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 14, 2016 06:22 PM |
|
|
In the end we don't live in dimensional rifts or time bubbles. Whatever we do - through our choices - affects others. Due to masses that just don't care, games were dumbed down. Now with all due respect, mvass and Cor, it doesn't matter whether you enjoy such games on a personal level, but when it comes to societies, it does speak volumes about the direction we're facing as people. Destination lazy.
Does this matter? For a casual, no. He just doesn't care, he gets his 5 bucks of entertainment. But for someone that's REALLY into gaming, for years... it's painful.
To make it easier to understand, picture a pianist (hi Sal) who's passion is making fantastic music. However, through society's indifference (on global level, not personal), there are no pianos made anymore. Instead, everyone plays (or watches others playing) a cheap plastic 3-octave toy. He tries it himself and playing such "instrument" feels like a cheap joke. But nobody makes pianos anymore. So, the pianist goes to a forum and complains, and all he gets is a "And what's wrong with playing a 3-octave plastic toy for enjoyment, Sal" from Mvass
To put it simply, if you offer a cheap way around a challenge, most people WILL take it. No matter what kind of a task is it, from going to college, through playing video games, to having sex, lol. And that's a bad thing because it kills the depth that you can perceive when you're commited enough. A casual will not only not notice the depth, but also the effect he has on destroying that depth by his lazy behavior.
Remember that video games are just an example here. Same thing can be said about many different aspects of human life, such as education. If you make it "accessible" enough, its value will go down; you'll have plenty of Master/PhD level people with no knowledge. Internet did make education easier, that's why we have much more "stupid but educated" people around. Gaming went the same way. And people who are hit hard by it are those who actually commit themselves. How can I treat education with passion and respect when it's mostly a joke that everybody can accomplish via cheating on exams through their mobile phone hidden in their sleeve? And how can I appreciate gaming the way I could, when games are made for raging casuals, where "very hard" is just a joke to be accomplished with my eyes closed?
Those things are NOT a matter of opinion or taste. Once you streamline things, they lose flavor, and the flavor is what humans usually relate with objective value.
Going back to video games: Difficulty levels are something that was intended to give ALL people equal challenge, but for some reason, even that feels wrong today. I pick "very hard" in Witcher 3, and the game is still super easy. What the heck? Where's the challenge necessary (for me) to get immersed? Instead, I just trample everything with my overpowered Aard and Igni. WTH?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 14, 2016 08:11 PM |
|
|
Of course, there can be a conflict between people with different tastes. But I think it's wrong to be so hard on casuals. Remember that when things weren't made for their tastes, they didn't have the source of enjoyment that they have now - you can say that they're missing the depth, but it's not like they were seeing it before, either. And for some people, depth requires too much attention and prevents them from getting into something.
I've been on both ends of this issue, so I'm sympathetic to the complaint of the hardcore - I've made it myself elsewhere. But it's quite a leap from "people aren't making things I like" to "civilizational decline".
I agree there's a problem with making education more accessible because it increases credentialism (i.e. you have to go to college now, because everyone else does), but that doesn't have much to do with the trends we've seen in gaming.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 15, 2016 09:06 AM |
|
|
Well, ultimately, laziness does lead to decline, because anything that's worth a damn requires effort and attention. With many people not giving effort and not paying attention, the developers can simply push out more lazily made products, because the number of paying customers that actually care is fairly low. As a rule of a thumb, the first 1/3 of the game is usually well-thought and fairly bug free, because a good share of customers will get bored beyond that. The rest is usually a balance nightmare and a bug haven.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
| |
|
|
