2,905 Forum Posts by "naronic"
Screw all you corndog dick losers
CIRCUMCISION SOCIETY UNITE!
WAAAH DIZ PASZED EPIZODEZ SUCKED AZZ IM GOING TO WATCH THE ENTIRE SEAZON AND CONTINU TO COMPLAIN WAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH.
Kid Nation is an American reality television show hosted by Jonathan Karsh that premiered on the CBS network on September 19, 2007 created by Tom Forman Productions and Endemol USA and aired on Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. ET . The show, featuring 40 children aged 8 to 15, was filmed on location at the Bonanza Creek Movie Ranch, a privately owned town built on the ruins of Bonanza City, New Mexico, eight miles south of Santa Fe, with production beginning on April 1, 2007. In the show, the children try to create a functioning society in the town, including setting up a government system with minimal adult help and supervision. The program was originally scheduled to air in the summer of 2007.
Ahead of its premiere, the show proved to be the most controversial of the upcoming fall 2007 season, even though the only actual footage seen was a four-minute promo running on television and the Web. In previewing the series, CBS eschewed television critics, instead holding screenings at schools in at least seven large cities. Variety columnist Brian Lowry wrote that "Kid Nation is only the latest program to use kids as fodder for fun and profit, which doesn't make the trend any less disturbing." William Coleman, a professor of pediatrics at the University of North Carolina, argued that the younger children, ages 8 to 12, might not be able to deal with the stress, yet could be enticed to participate by the potential fame or be pressured to do so by a parent.
After the show's premiere, many television critics wrote negative reviews, with Los Angeles Times critic Robert Lloyd a notable exception. Reviewing the first episode, Washington Post columnist Tom Shales suggested that the show is "not so much an exercise in socialization as the indoctrination of children into a consumer culture". Shales pointed out that the kids' decisions included buying root beer at the saloon with "real money", but not hiring or being hired - as their money was "parceled out to them according to their predetermined stations in life."
By the third show, some advertisers that had shied away from Kid Nation due to its initial controversy had begun to purchase time.
Re Los Angeles Times writer Maria Elena Fernandez, who had reported extensively on Kid Nation, wrote that neither the show's pre-premiere promises or controversies ever quite congealed: the children were never as autonomous or self-reliant as the publicity indicated and the threatened legal investigations by the state of New Mexico never took off. As the series concluded, low ratings had cast doubt on whether CBS would renew the show. Brad Adgate, an analyst with Horizon Media, said the chances were not good unless a writers' strike, ongoing at the time of the season finale, increased demand for more reality shows.
Time magazine's James Poniewozik named it one of the Top 10 New TV Series of 2007, ranking it at #10.
It was nominated for Best Family Television Reality Show, Game Show or Documentary at the 29th Annual Young Artist Awards.
The show I watched at the age of 13, wishing I could be there by the age of 14. Filling out the application but never arriving due to the ignorance of soccer moms and dads with the power to sue.
At 3/6/13 12:49 PM, poxpower wrote:At 3/6/13 11:52 AM, naronic wrote:See here's my problem.
In all my research on this, I find two camps of opposition:
1. The camp that says the IQ data is wrong
2. The camp that says the IQ data isn't wrong, but that genetics don't explain the gaps.
Well which is it?
The prediction is simple: You will never close the gaps no matter how hard you try.
Good question, it's both.
1: There is evidence of overwhelming test bias in tests taken in African countries, stripping all that away the actual intelligence rises about 10 to 20 points to rest in the 80's, on par with many other poor, impoverished, or violent countries around the world. http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf
2: While still being behind most countries in IQ, that information alone is not conclusive of any genetic explanation. Especially not in the light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This really has much less to do with closing gaps than you believe
#1 We've already closed the gap in experiment
#2 We've proven racial admixture, as well as the studies attempting to confirm it, false. Kneecapping the hereditarian argument where it hurts.
Well I looked into it and the USA had restricted African immigration up until the late 60s, same time that Britain tightened their immigration policy to allow only select members. That means that they select only the higher achievers to allow into the country.
So your sample of Nigerians is absolutely not random or representative, as far as I can see.
"USA had restricted African immigration up until the late 60s" what is that supposed to mean in terms of your rebuttal?
The British passed the Immigration Act in 1971 and the Commonwealth act in 1968 to restrict immigration to those with a work permit.
The act also stands for all immigrants equally, there's no "African selection" going on; nobody is going around looking for Nigerians specifically with IQ's over 120, 110, or even 100 with jobs. Civil and political unrest in Nigeria contributed to many refugees migrating to Britain, along with skilled workers that only accelerated along the 80's and 90's after independence. A similar immigration patter occurs for the U.S as well.
Plus they achieve more academically than White Britons in Britain and Whites and Asians in the U.S. where immigration policy is less tight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nigerian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_American#Education
Dude this is your same study that says the opposite of what you think it says.
"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."
-_-
"contribution of genes is close to zero"
"Poverty nullifies genetics in determining IQ"
"IQ numbers can be greatly effected by poverty and socio-economic status to the point where genetics play practically no role at all."
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1334320/2?id=1334320&pag e=2#bbspost24531806_post_text
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1334320/2?id=1334320&pag e=2#bbspost24535423_post_text
So basically, the poorer the family, the less genetics plays a role, and the wealthier the family, the bigger the role, ( which again is exactly where the prediction that the gap will never close comes from ).
This doesn't prove it nullifies the genetic effect, it just shows it affects it, as NO ONE EVER denied.
So taking this logic downtown what do you expect when you give IQ tests to people in impoverished or diseased conditions?
At 3/4/13 10:02 PM, poxpower wrote:At 3/4/13 08:51 PM, naronic wrote:I'm not saying that genetics don't provide a role in IQOk then we're not arguing about anything then.
We are
You titled your thread "mentally retarded countries" and then began arguing a racial - genetic viewpoint to that correlation as well as playing with the idea of eugenics.
"There is a far stronger correlation between race and IQ than between money and IQ. If what they suggest is true, then you'd expect everyone from a set class to have the same IQ, no matter their race, yet in every country you find that people of different races, even if they are adopted into middle-class or rich families, have consistent predictable IQ scores that are mostly the result of genetics."
"Sadly, they can still vote :D
Can't kill em', but they can choose who's the President."
I've seen and had to deal with racist jizzleaks before and I always tell them the same thing "Intelligence isn't reducible to race and a lot of these differences in IQ can be explained by other more plausible means that we know of"
Secondly black IQ scores are rising, another thing that you seem to not understand while you're digging up Wikipedia links. Sometimes from 5 or 6 points to as much as one standard deviation in 30 years on some tests. Therefore the environmental factor doesn't loose any credibility as much as it gains accolades.Yeah I didn't say otherwise.
And asians means east asians. Just like Africans, they are a diverse ethnic group with some populations having very high IQs and also high genetic variance.
I don't see it being the case that the same types of asians score randomly across the globe on intelligence tests, same for other races.
There could very well be select populations of Africans with very high IQs, there's nothing that says it has to be this way. My guess is that they would be genetically differentiated for many generations from the other groups.
When going with the type of argument you're going with, that Blacks are generally less intelligent by virtue of being Black and Asians are simply more intelligent by virtue of being Asian, you have to contest with the accolades of evidence suggesting otherwise.
Like test bias and experiments with malnutrition and early socialization lowering IQ by expansive margins, the rising of minority IQ scores significantly flies in the face of the hereditarian argument, which relies mostly on data snapshots, cherry picked evidence, and intuition.
Saying that there may be populations of Africans with High IQ's to save you from this and other argumentative points means virtually nothing, you'd have to explain why certain populations living in the same environment as other populations warranted a genetic change resulting in it, and how this can't be explained by environmental factors.
Once again there are no isolated incidences here, these are entire populations of Africans once thought to have lower than average IQ raising up the ranks due to the better environmental conditions and education.
Well it seems to me that based on your premise that Rushton isn't respected enough scientifically, his data / conclusions are false. You've even gone out of your way to make it seem like NO ONE seriously respected him and he was like somehow barred from serious publication when that's just not true as he was publishing material pretty much till the day he died.
Rushton once tried to publish a research paper with references to a non-scientific pornographic magazine Penthouse, a lot of his publications were laughing stocks as well
"Faced with this kind of criticism, Rushton tells us: "My response is that critics have failed to show an opposite
predicted ordering in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint..." (p. 236). For his critics to succeed, they
supposedly must prove the null hypothesis that group differences are "randomly distributed around a mean of
zero." This is a posture I term "chip-on-the-shoulder science." The author is an earnest believer in genetically
determined race differences, and he vows to cling tenaciously to his world view unless his opponents can
provide conclusive proof to the contrary. In my opinion, this is the kind of approach to be expected from
religious zealots and politicians, not professional scientists. A rigorous evaluation of the evidence cited by
Rushton reveals the methods in most studies were seriously flawed and render the data inconclusive. If the
evidence is so poor, the proper action for a scientist is to suspend judgment. In reality, there is not one properly
controlled study of brain size comparing representative samples of races in the entire world literature."
He's been supported by the Pioneer Fund, a fund he headed, and the American Renaissance, admittedly racist monthly magazine.
Additionally he cherrypicks his findings, a habit that's apparently hard to break since he's been doing it close to 30 years by the time that paper was written, cutting his credibility down to a mere stump in my view.
You also kind of remind me of Rushton the way you completely ignore all the evidence I have stockpiled waiting for you.
Nigerian educational achievement in the U.S. as well as elsewhere.
These aren't isolated incidences, these are significant amounts of people from an unprivileged country attaining the highest level of achievement and getting full educations by the age of 21.
Poverty nullifies genetics in determining IQ
and so does disease and violence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11876674
Plus the average African IQ may be much higher if you look at other more recent studies
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf
Also another thing.
A rival study actually puts average Sub-saharan African IQ in the 80's from recent empirical data. Results show that average IQ of Africans on these tests is approximately 82 when compared to UK norms
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609 000634
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf
Ok thanks for your random bombing of me with links that don't prove anything. Oh you found an article about an upcoming publication that may criticize some results from Flynn? Oh shit, that's rock-solid evidence right there.
All you're doing is the same thing as always: Pointing to the fact ( that has never been denied by any of the people studying these score gaps ) that culture and environment play a role and then extrapolating this to conclude that it plays 100% of the role, or at least that it COULD and it's not fair to claim it doesn't before "all the evidence is in" ( which it will never be based on the standards demanded).
I'm not saying that genetics don't provide a role in IQ, it's just that you can't really reduce it to something as broad and mundane as race and certainly not with the data you possess. Poxpower, not only do you approach this subject with the professionalism of an 8th grader writing a 200 word essay on nothing but Wikipedia links and YouTube video's but you seem to think, rather laughably, that it gives you any sort of leverage in this debate.
Studies on race differences in of themselves have been proven inconclusive due to "race" in of itself being constructed socially, and the absence of a gene you can link to intelligence.
The heritability of intelligence is not static either.
Early socialization effects on IQ let to significant differences going as far as 1 standard deviation (104 vs 117) ages 7 to 10
Finally all this data almost conclusively adds up to no support for the hereditarian interpretation of the black/white IQ gap.
(this article also mentions the many cough-ups of hereditarians as well, racial admixture studies don't add up)
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/nisbett-
on-rushton-and-jensen.pdf
"Another blood-group study, by Loehlin, Vandenberg, and Osborne (1973),
also examined the association between Europeanness and IQ in a sample of
Blacks. In this study, the estimated Europeanness of blood groups(rather than the
Europeanness of individuals, estimated from their blood groups) was correlated
with IQ in two small samples of Blacks (Loehlin et al., 1973). A .01 correlation
between IQ and the extent to which blood group genes were more characteristic
of European than African populations was found. In another small sample, they
found a nonsigniï¬cant, -.38 correlation, such that blood groups associated with
Europeanness predicted lower IQ scores."
As well as the fact that IQ is also effected by gene expression, which in turn is effected by environmental factors such as disease.
Yeah that would prove something if anyone had claimed socioeconomic factors had no role to play, which no one did. If you look at the map of China, you clearly see that the higher IQs concentrate around the more affluent regions.
And you'll notice as well that there's no part of China that has a 90 point IQ just as there are not countries in Africa where the average IQ is 100.
I really didn't realize it was this hard to put 2 and 2 together.
Is poverty in China the same as poverty in Africa with disease and starvation?
If culture and economics were truly the only factors, you'd expect at least some kind of variation, but astronigingly, everywhere there's asians, apparently there's a culture favorable to higher IQs and everywhere there's black people, there's a culture favorable to lower IQs?
Malaysia - 92
Indonesia - 89
Thailand - 91
Philippines - 86
http://www.iqtestforfree.net/average-IQ-by-country.html
http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
Let me just ask a question: If you took 50 black couples with an IQ of 110 and only allowed their children with an IQ of 112 to breed with other blacks with an IQ of 112 ( raising the requirement for breeding by 2 points a year), would you hypothesize that in 10 generations the average IQ of this population would be 100? That is to say, the average IQ of the 10th generation children, who's parents would all have an IQ of 130 or higher, would still average back down to 100?
That would depend on the heritability of IQ as a whole, which as already has been stated is inconsistent, and unreliable in the face of extraneous factors such as poverty and disease.
Secondly black IQ scores are rising, another thing that you seem to not understand while you're digging up Wikipedia links. Sometimes from 5 or 6 points to as much as one standard deviation in 30 years on some tests. Therefore the environmental factor doesn't loose any credibility as much as it gains accolades.
At 3/2/13 09:15 PM, poxpower wrote: 7 countries have an average IQ lower than what the USA considers mentally retarded:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-low est-average-iq/
So I say, it's wrong to kill them because according to the USA's own metric for who's too stupid to kill, most of them are :D
In fact, we should sell no weapons to those countries either.
Is this your OP?
"HURR DURR STATISTIZ SAY RETARDED COURTRIES R BLECK COURTRIES HAHA BLECK LOW IQ WITE POWR"
Well poxpower speaking as a black person apparently way smarter than you I think I should tell you that statistics can always be analyzed to prove a different conclusion, be proven wrong or faulty, or proven to be inconclusive.
For instance when racists like you shove IQ numbers in our face and heavily and excitedly breathe out the words "BLACKS HAV LOWR IQ WE TOLD U SO...", we can tell you IQ numbers can be greatly effected by poverty and socio-economic status to the point where genetics play practically no role at all.
We can tell you that the testing itself is biased and flawed as well http://www.southernct.edu/organizations/hcr/2001/nonfiction/
testbias.htm, and that there is direct evidence conflicting with the traditional race view point such as Nigerian Immigrant educational achievement.
You also ignore the Flynn effect which knees the credibility of IQ tests as a whole,
http://pcp.lanl.gov/FLYNNEFF.html
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_
nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ729986&ERICExtSear ch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ729986
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741743
As well as IQ disparities within relatively racially stable populations
http://theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/iq-geography-in -china/
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/NationalIQs.aspx
I think your next stunt should be doing leapfrog with a shoebox in a busy highway intersection, I'm pretty sure your parents will approve if you go upstairs and ask them.
http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm
I'm smart
Behold the all new reincarnated...
Probably Ethiopian or Pacific Islander/Asian, nice singing voice and good complementary personality.
It better be, 2012 was a disappointment in every sense of the word.
But ultimately your enjoyment of the year will boil down to the things you do,
I.E get up off newgrounds and get a girlfriend
And even right now, you are arguing that consoles should fade away, lose influence, exclusivity, and all competition. That everyone should just hop on the magical PC bandwagon and ride it into the future of gaming.
Once again I'm only using PC as a backdrop for what I really want which is universal distribution of gaming. Consoles are one of the major things standing in the way of that.
2.85. Guess who just got locked out of the future of gaming, along with a quarter of the damn country.
Once again the situations liable to change, these services will get more accessible as internet speeds continue to increase http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2012/11/%E2%80%98fut ure-proof%E2%80%99-technology-will-increase-internet-speeds-
capacity.
Plus you're internet as I'm sure you know is slower than 75% of the country and you're .15 away from the cutting off point Onlive offers, most people are in the range to be able to run and play on Onlive so you could say we're already halfway there.
Maybe not Spyro, but the other three have absolutely changed the industry.
Mario popularized platformers, now look at the industry.
Halo: CE had a regenerating life bar, now look at the industry.
Halo 2 single-handedly secured the dominance of Xbox live, now look at the industry.
Uncharted fused gameplay and storytelling into an experience that felt almost exactly like an interactive Hollywood blockbuster, now look at the industry. Hell, Uncharted 2 is considered by many to be the industry standard for any third-person shooter nowadays, and all because Sony wanted to compete with Microsoft.
Without exclusivity, these games just wouldn't exist.
The success of a multiplatform game doesn't diminish the success of an exclusive game.
Yes but you can see the clear difference.
Call of duty, and cross-platform FPS games like Battlefield 3, and Crysis for better or worse have defined the FPS genre and moreover the video game industry to a much greater degree lately than either Halo, Mario and Uncharted combined, which more or less are seen as representing their respective consoles.
In fact the Call of duty franchise is most actually accredited to merging gameplay and story to create an experience that resembles a Hollywood film.
Cross platform games like Portal, Angry Birds, and Super Meat Boy created entire memes and followings after themselves, and Half life and Half life 2 (which were both developed cross-platform) revolutionized the role of physics engines, NPC interaction, and storytelling in action games forever.
While I don't want to get into a subjective battle of quality, regenerating heath and a Hollywood type focus of storytelling was simply brought into the mainstream with games like Halo and Uncharted, and have been experimented with long before then. My money says they still would've existed without the help of console exclusivity if only in different form.
http://www.giantbomb.com/wolverine-adamantium-rage/3030-1200 2/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Payne_2:_The_Fall_of_Max_Pa yne
When the game is being published/developed by a hardware manufacturer, then that ceases to be true.
And that shouldn't be the case, if a hardware company is entering the sphere of game design it should be required that they understand they're competing against other games and not bring hardware into it. Which is one of the reasons I want people to stop feeding into Sony and Microsoft's bullcrap console war.
Except if consoles stop competing, they will fade out, stop being made, and eventually we'll all just be stuck with PCs and nothing else.
Everyone whom still has a console will have a console in the future.
And no, competition doesn't keep selling consoles, transition time as well as demand and the willingness to supply does that, and you don't necessarily need to have competition for either.
The PS2 outlived it's boxing days for nearly 7 years, the PS1 which wasn't competitive at all after it's hay day lasted 6 years as well. So did the N64 (and yes while games were still being developed for at as far in as 2000 it sure wasn't competitive well into 2001). The Atari outlived it's time by a long shot.
A large portion of this idea of universal distribution is the fact that it's transitional, like arcades to online multiplayer, tapes to CD's, just enough time for people to get comfortable and situated with the new style before they knew what hit them. We're already a quarter through the transition already, there may not be a good enough portion of people with the right internet or money to make it today but it's very unlikely that that will be the case for too much longer.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/22/4017148/a-day-in-google-gl ass-video
How the fuck is a consumer who can't afford a good PC expected to keep gaming in a world without consoles?
Narry, I want you to answer this question. Dodging questions like you did before isn't a good strategy for winning arguments.
As I've also stated before, the gaming accessibility bar in general is going to drop with new technologies such as Unlimited Detail, and new services such as Onlive, as well as competition on the hardware front rather than the gaming front as all this takes place.
Comparing the PS3's price range to that of a modern gaming computer would be like comparing a used 2006 Sedan to a 2012 sports car. The PS3 back in it's eve cost about 500 to 600$.
The 360 costing 300 to 400$ depending on whether you wanted backwards compatibility back in 2006
I think one of the misconceptions of my argument is that I'm a PC elitist that thinks consoles should die because PC gamz ownz. If you're responding to that imaginary Naronic then your counter argument looses all value. I'm arguing for the universal distribution of games, the unity of the entire game industry to make games we want to play and compete with each other on the basis of having the better GAME, not the better hardware required to play the game on.
I simply use the PC as a vantage point because a lot of advancements are being made in this front like ONLIVE which you don't need a good graphics card to use or even a god-like internet connection, 3 to 5mbpsand even that's likely to change in the future as services like this get more widespread.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/9/3230626/akamai-global-inter net-speed
Unless, once again, they can't fucking afford a good computer.
You also need to specify good.
A computer coming at 1200$ isn't good, it's godlike, and meant to be only for the hardest of hardcore enthusiasts
A 500$ custom or prebuilt computer can be classified as a good gaming computer.
and once again Onlive.
Yes, but without the "Console Wars", we're still talking about a notable dip in competition, not to mention a lack of games which would not exist but for exclusivity.
And BTW, yes. Consoles DO need exclusive titles to compete. Imagine a world where Halo: CE was multiplatform, do you think the original Xbox would have ever taken off? It came out long after the PS2 did, and the hardware differences were minimal. Exclusives were what sold the system.
Unless you really believe games born out of console exclusivity such as Halo, Spyro, Mario or Uncharted have really bettered themselves or have been game changing to the industry as a whole I don't really see the problem. Sure they might have helped sell systems but it did nothing in return for the games themselves.
Games like Call of Duty, on the other hand, managed to completely take over the game industry and prosper in money because of the popularity it gained from being able to be on all consoles and on PC.
Games shouldn't have to stick it's neck out for hardware, hardware should be doing that for games.
And once again people can still own consoles if they so choose but consoles themselves shouldn't have any power over gaming.
Wow you only forgot to mention that you'll need at least a 600W PSU if you want to have a mid gaming PC nowadays, and even that you'll have to upgrade in the next year or two. Oh you also forgot that you'll want a PC Case, oh and a Motherboard, sound card, wireless card and an OS, that's at least $300+ worth of stuff that isn't even going to play everything at high at 1080.
Tell me, the gamers who can't afford $500-1,000 rigs, how in god's name are they supposed to keep playing without consoles?
You act like you can't provide a PC Case, a motherboard, a sound and wireless card, and an OS if you've ever owned a computer before, that's a nitpicked issue. I have a very cheap gaming fan (about 30 dollars), and I can play almost any new game at mid-to high range settings.
You don't have to pay over 700$ for a top range gaming PC if you know what you're doing, and insisting that the required cost of a good gaming PC is over 1000$ is very ignorant.
Ultimately the cost of modern hardware is and has been getting cheaper and more accessible to the average consumer since the early 2000's, and it will continue to do so.
Unlimited Detail, the cloud and other such technologies will ultimately break down the big boy admissions gate for developers of all sides of the gaming spectrum, as well as for consumers.
The only thing that could hurt this process is the exclusivity that comes with consoles.
the PS4 is future proof, it will last you a good 10 years, in that time you'll have to completely replace your PC at least once, quite possibly twice.
The PS3 didn't even last 6 years before being being replaced by the PS4, and the same thing goes for the PS2, and the PS1, and consoles in general. All the new games in about a year will be in development for the PS4 and the backwards compatibility still won't be there.
I really don't get why people insist this point is true, the average life span of a gaming PC is around the average life span of a console.
Uh, no. In a capitalistic system, competition is always necessary.
You're right, in a capitalistic system competition is always necessary, just not in the places we don't need it.
Yes, game consoles nowadays are far more "standardized" than they were in the past. So what?
So that means there's no "competition" to be had anymore, we already have the ultimate standardized system available to us everyday 24/7. The Xbox and PS3 are just trying to ape that with all this social crap based off internet connectivity but what are they really trying to be? Devices where you can play games, share and chat with your friends, and do other activities like watch movies with? That's called a PC.
I watched the PS4 reveal show and heard all this hollow talk about "opening up to the average consumer", "making gaming easier for the average joe", when they don't realize all the "average joe's" are flocking away from consoles downloading universally digitally distributed apps like Angry Birds for their Iphone, Android, and Samsung devices.
A centralized place or system where we can simply keep games, download games, mod games, archive games (very important), and just enjoy games without having to buy anything other than a working computer to play all of them is a place where gaming will benefit, in a lot of the same ways home-video and DVD's benefited. Services like Onlive are already promising this, and services like Steam are already providing this.
There will still be hardware competition in the background where we need it; just benefiting computers in general, not sponged up in gaming itself.
Unless they had none at all, were down to about 10 KB/s, or just didn't have enough hard drive space.
The chances you'd be able to afford a console and games on it already and not have an internet connection are pretty slim.
Plus, with all the devices with built in internet I see this fast becoming a non-issue later in this decade.
I'm also not saying that all consoles should be burned and destroyed, they should simply become irrelevant to gaming's future. They should not have any power of exclusivity in this medium.
Yeah, I prefer PC, but you might be the only SOB I know of who says we shouldn't have consoles at all.
I'm not saying I hate the Xbox or PS3, or really that they're bad machines, they just provide a competition that doesn't need to be made anymore.
Consoles were relevant back in the 90's and maybe early 2000's largely because it provided a service that PC's didn't at the time, a kind of pickup and play convenience that gaming had when most games weren't so bloated with needless social software, DLC, and patches; and didn't feel like it needed that stuff either.
We had no real concept of the universality of game hardware because game consoles back then actually had significant differences which not only changed their performance but the games made for them (An effect that can be seen with multiplatform games such as Doom); as well as the philosophy and approach each console took to selling itself.
The Genesis had significant differences from the SNES and the original Xbox had significant differences from the PS2; differences that actually made certain consoles differentiate in quality by an expansive margin and give the whole situation the right to wear the name "competition".
Nowadays we have a pretty good idea of what a game console should be like: social, usually have hardware intended for another medium fused with it (PS3 bluray), internet connection, 4 controllers, 1080p capability, the works.
You could call the Xbox360, PS3 vs WiiU an actual competition but otherwise this "competition" only amounts to 3 rabid greyhounds clawing at any sort of new technology or company they can get their paws on and wringing any amount of money they can get out of the empty carcass, when they're not trying to rip off and wring money out of themselves. Backwards compatibility be damned.
But moreover any of these qualities the 3 consoles most want can already be achieved infinitely more efficiently on PC, with the only "console competition" being which company, not console or even hardware, you swear to.
We get sucked into another console war, High end ego's get handjobs, and we get fucked over.
Ultimately the only competition that should be going on in gaming is the games themselves. Games can be used to sell products but not have the requirement of having that product to play them. Uncharted and Halo are exclusives but they haven't been improved over time due to their exclusivity and games like Call of Duty move more units then them both due to the popularity they gathered from their un-exclusivity.
An environment of universality is better for indie game developers as well as Steam has shown.
Not if everything switches to digital distribution and cloud gaming.
My friend Sectus, for one; people who live outside the range of the best providers, for two; people who just can't afford the best services, for three; and myself during certain times of the year, for four.
If we drop cloud gaming and just stick to digital distribution I put my money on almost anyone being able to download a game today regardless of their internet. The situation would be exactly the same with or without consoles. If you can play online, you can play online, if you can't, there's single player. Your games would just be all in one place on your computer.
and move to digital distribution and cloud gaming.Thereby limiting gaming entirely to the people with good internet. Brilliant strategy!
How many people who regularly game have bad internet nowadays?
Almost every game these days comes with a standard multiplayer mode just to appease the growing number of gamers whom do almost nothing but play with other people through multiplayer. If you don't have good internet you'd play single player games on consoles.
It would be the same situation with PC.
At 2/22/13 01:56 AM, explodingbunnies wrote:At 2/22/13 01:34 AM, naronic wrote: Are you a game communist?
You got me
Who do you think supplies parts for the next gen consoles?
The point is to not have consoles
PC's are also upwards of a thousand dollars for one that can run modern games on high settings, and that's if you build it yourself. pre-builts are even more for a good one.
Actually a good standard prebuilt PC costs about 400 to 500 dollars. Building a gaming PC yourself (assuming you're going mid-range) should be around 500 dollars as well.
(these are all approximations)
CPU: 150$
Memory: 60$
competent graphics card: 200$
New hard-drive(Assuming you aren't supplying one yourself): 100$
fans and other extranalities (assuming you aren't supplying them yourself): 20$
roughly 530$
Both kinds of PC's are upgradable to a much greater degree than any console which means, if you so choose, you can always be on the cutting edge of gaming technology.
At 2/22/13 12:34 AM, explodingbunnies wrote:At 2/21/13 11:36 PM, naronic wrote:make gaming universal is if we break down the stupid exclusivity wall that's been obsolete since 2007.Why would anyone do that? Doing that would create absolutely zero need for innovation between the companies. Hardware and Software alike needs some form of exclusivity in order for the magical capitalist system to work. If all the companies had zero exclusives, what makes one console better than the other? What really makes you want one instead of the other? They're all the same, dammit! The market would go to a steady decline if consoles were universal. You need exclusivity.
We shouldn't have hardware capitalism in a place where we don't need it, especially if we have hardware companies like Nvidia, Dell, Intel and AMD that already provide that service for us. PC gaming hardware is improving at a much faster rate than consoles anyway which sort of invalidates your argument, the PS4's specs aren't even up to the top 2011 PC standards. The point is to not have Consoles in the future as a pretentious hardware-wall separating fans, games, and gaming alike and move to digital distribution and cloud gaming.
Games absolutely don't need console exclusivity to better themselves, they compete against other games.
The PS4 is going to flop because consoles themselves are starting to wane.
I commend Sony on basically pinkie-swearing they'll hand job every last casual cock and average joe-jimmie they can possibly get their hands on but the only way we're really going to make gaming universal is if we break down the stupid exclusivity wall that's been obsolete since 2007. Giving indie games some of the breathing room that comes with developing universally and giving players the option to play all the games they want, with the hardware they want to play it with.
I find the MLP fandom quite retarded but I'm fine with the people in it.
Smoke? Oh I'm going to love this power...
"The only real wisdom is knowing that you know nothing"
- Socrates
I do have intent on getting a civilized debate going,
No you don't
Also the title is a red harring, people can believe in creation and evolution even if it doesn't make sense, that's why it's called a personal belief.
Wow, the Sony meeting was... underwhelming.
At 2/20/13 06:33 PM, Evark wrote: Sekhem's link pretty much fucked that solipsistic shit up. The solipsism article is all, "no citations here." and embodied cognition is all, "here're decades of studies."
Not really, it's just that you accept it to be true.
You can't know anything to be true for sure.
All your experiences, all you know is second hand, and you don't know where that hand is coming from.
You can accept the link as sufficient evidence but skepticism still stands.
I really wish consoles would just die already and games could be downloaded through universal digital distribution.Fuck That! What if you want to trade or give back a game?
There's really no point to a PS4
I'm pretty sure you can answer that question yourself.
I really wish consoles would just die already and games could be downloaded through universal digital distribution.
There's really no point to a PS4
Anyone miss Nyan Cat now?
