I saw a little video on msn video which was a short introduction to a book titled "How to Never Look Fat Again" by Charla Krupp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfC2lj_HJi4 thats not the video i saw on msn btw). While the video was loading i was thinking to myself "this is gonna be ridiculously dumb and outraging" because if you didn't already know or if you didn't guess it already, I don't really like how fashion is presenting us really skinny women as the type of body shape girls should strive for.
I don't like how were all very superficial, how there's so many girls concerned about their fat and silhouettes while most of the time they really are not overweight and in many case look absolutely gorgeous. Sometimes it's so bad it makes me wonder if girls concerned about their silhouettes have trouble with their spatial vision.
I also really hate the social pressure women have to live with because they need to look great all the time.
So with that in mind i started watching the video. I was thinking the 2 superficials women in it were dumb reinforcing the stereotypes and giving tips on how to hide that "buddha belly" or really large hips. The book really emphasize on changing the way women dress in order to hide the imperfections and i couldnt help it but be amazed by how sometimes the different clothes can really change the impression you get from looking at a women. I had no choice than to admit not every piece of clothes suits every women and sometimes you can go from bad to good simply by changing clothes. In my opinion, it comes down to the individuals to choose what they wear according to their common sense. Sometimes though, i thought the advice given were completely outrageous like "wear a V-neck to draw attention away from your belly" which is basically like saying "you're an object and if you show alot of cleavage people wont bother looking at the rest"
So the book can provide a band-aid fix to a problem, which is women being concerned by their silhouettes and give them a little self confidence boost. But theres still a deeper social problem where women are simply not comfortable with their body and want to hide their imperfection. They need to somehow be able to live with them and not worry too much. I could say "be rational" but who am I to say that you can objectively judge who's good looking and who isn't, who should be concerned about their appearance and who shouldn't. Come to think of it, it really shouldn't be that way, beauty is something that should remain entirely subjective to everyone, the problem is that right now were socialized to enjoy certain type of women, while others are left in the shadow not getting any attention.
Besides, what makes a person look great often will be how they are wearing their body, take for example a girl with a true smile versus one thats afraid to smile because shes concerned about bad teeth or braces. A true smile will always be nice if it bears the joy contained within a person. Beauty is NOT limited to physical traits, in fact its the result of someone's vitality.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
ke$ha is....
hot! no thats not the only thing I wanted to write about,
I was listening to the radio today and Black Eyed Peas - Meet Me Halfway (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRNQS5UCQQIwas) playing and while listening i thought to myself "i cant imagine anybody on this planet would like that song for the male vocals more than for the rest of the songs (off course its also because its not the chorus) but my point is that its amazing how these vocals are only there to fill in the blanks and have pretty much nothing to do with the construction of this really simple song.
I was talking about that with a friend and we went on talking about how the pop industry was looking for marketability over musical talent. He then mentionned how, when you look at how ke$ha performs, even in her video clip, "it's not the type of music she'd be known for if she had a choice". I had heard that "Tik-Tok" was not representative of her album so i decided to search on youtube to hear some of the songs shes made. After hearing a few songs i thought that it was all pretty much the same stuff where ke$ha just talks dirty in her songs because sex sells with titles such as "I made out with a rockstar" or "party at a rich dude house" and lyrics such as "I want to put my hands in your khaki pants mr. watson" and "tell me what youre gonna do to me". But i dont think im surprising anyone here. But lets go back to our main statement about how
"it's not the type of music she'd be known for if she had a choice". because during my youtube search, amongst all the different uploads of tik-tok and the various other crappy song that can be found on her album Animal, i found this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5QYwMfac8o. I'm not gonna say i find this song good, but its definitely a huge contrast from all the other things. interestingly enough, this song is not listed in her discography and its not on her Animal album. It seems to me that shes more her trueself in that song than in others and to me, she definitely sounds way less stupid and as one of the youtube user commented on that song: "she totly rocks this type of music".
but yea that one song seems to be the only one covered by all the other songs that "sell more" but also depicts a naughtier ke$ha and a general image of a "bad girl". one thats attractive to men, one that creates revenues.
also from the wikipedia Animal album page:
Criticism for the album came from James Reed of the The Boston Globe and Jonathan Keefe of Slant Magazine. The former wondered when "the last time an album so flat and vacuous generated such a buzz [was]," denouncing Animal as "a shallow hodgepodge of 2009’s tried-and-true formulas," and said "you can almost hear the clock counting down her fifteen minutes of fame."[4] Keefe wrote a scathing review of the album finished by saying that "[j]ust about the only thing Kesha makes convincing on Animal is that the current crop of party girls are every bit as soulless as they let on."
I was listening to the radio today and Black Eyed Peas - Meet Me Halfway (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRNQS5UCQQIwas) playing and while listening i thought to myself "i cant imagine anybody on this planet would like that song for the male vocals more than for the rest of the songs (off course its also because its not the chorus) but my point is that its amazing how these vocals are only there to fill in the blanks and have pretty much nothing to do with the construction of this really simple song.
I was talking about that with a friend and we went on talking about how the pop industry was looking for marketability over musical talent. He then mentionned how, when you look at how ke$ha performs, even in her video clip, "it's not the type of music she'd be known for if she had a choice". I had heard that "Tik-Tok" was not representative of her album so i decided to search on youtube to hear some of the songs shes made. After hearing a few songs i thought that it was all pretty much the same stuff where ke$ha just talks dirty in her songs because sex sells with titles such as "I made out with a rockstar" or "party at a rich dude house" and lyrics such as "I want to put my hands in your khaki pants mr. watson" and "tell me what youre gonna do to me". But i dont think im surprising anyone here. But lets go back to our main statement about how
"it's not the type of music she'd be known for if she had a choice". because during my youtube search, amongst all the different uploads of tik-tok and the various other crappy song that can be found on her album Animal, i found this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5QYwMfac8o. I'm not gonna say i find this song good, but its definitely a huge contrast from all the other things. interestingly enough, this song is not listed in her discography and its not on her Animal album. It seems to me that shes more her trueself in that song than in others and to me, she definitely sounds way less stupid and as one of the youtube user commented on that song: "she totly rocks this type of music".
but yea that one song seems to be the only one covered by all the other songs that "sell more" but also depicts a naughtier ke$ha and a general image of a "bad girl". one thats attractive to men, one that creates revenues.
also from the wikipedia Animal album page:
Criticism for the album came from James Reed of the The Boston Globe and Jonathan Keefe of Slant Magazine. The former wondered when "the last time an album so flat and vacuous generated such a buzz [was]," denouncing Animal as "a shallow hodgepodge of 2009’s tried-and-true formulas," and said "you can almost hear the clock counting down her fifteen minutes of fame."[4] Keefe wrote a scathing review of the album finished by saying that "[j]ust about the only thing Kesha makes convincing on Animal is that the current crop of party girls are every bit as soulless as they let on."
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Friendship between guys and girls part 2
Here's a convo I had about friendship between guys and girls that helps complete my previous blog entry
[13:39] Mike: A homosexual male could have friend ships with girls with no problems
[13:39] #kom.Pako: yea
[13:40] Mike: except they might both be attracted to the same male
[13:40] #kom.Pako: lol
[13:40] Mike: lol
[13:40] #kom.Pako: every girl need a male friend
[13:40] #kom.Pako: theyll often say "i want a gay friend"
[13:40] #kom.Pako: but that friend doesnt need to be gay
[13:40] Mike: i agree
[13:41] Mike: it does seem that male/female friendships always do end when an attraction forms
[13:41] Mike: but your right that it doesnt have to
[13:41] #kom.Pako: yea
[13:42] #kom.Pako: but also think about it
[13:42] #kom.Pako: how many of your female friends are really NOT attractive at all
[13:42] Mike: true
[13:42] #kom.Pako: theres always something sexual to initiate the relationship
[13:42] #kom.Pako: you will never go speak to someone thats totally unnatractive to you
[13:42] Mike: well sure i would
[13:43] Mike: if she was in my class or something
[13:43] Mike: or if i worked with her
[13:43] Mike: lol
[13:43] Mike: not to get to know her on a relationship level though
[13:43] #kom.Pako: well
[13:43] #kom.Pako: lets say im in a class for project and we need to find teammates
[13:44] #kom.Pako: i wont go toward someone that i find really unnactractive
[13:44] #kom.Pako: But i might end up working with one if she's a friend of somebody else i find attractive
[13:44] #kom.Pako: or she might ask me to work with her which i wouldn't refuse even if she is unnattractive
[13:44] Mike: lol what if the unnactractive girl was top of the class?
[13:44] Mike: maybe then?
[13:44] #kom.Pako: i still wouldnt target her i think
[13:44] Mike: well you and I are different then
[13:44] Mike: do you have a GF?
[13:44] #kom.Pako: no
[13:44] Mike: that would change things too
[13:44] #kom.Pako: i guess thats another value to add to the equation
[13:45] Mike: ya
[13:45] #kom.Pako: but like there are a few less attractive girls that i talk to, but im not that close to them simply cause i dont show that much interest
[13:45] Mike: you could also add, how many girlfriends would allow a guy to have girls as their friends?
[13:45] Mike: ya very true
[13:45] #kom.Pako: yea
[13:46] #kom.Pako: well i think many girls will think that friendship between guys and girls ends up in attraction so theres many that wouldnt allow it
[13:46] Mike: yep
[13:46] Mike: but the right girl for you should allow it
[13:46] Mike: there should be no jealousy
[13:46] Mike: let me ask you this
[13:47] Mike: say your dating a girl for 6months now
[13:47] Mike: and she wants to go to lunch with a guy that she dated 3 years ago
[13:47] Mike: and she promises there is nothing to worry about
[13:47] Mike: would you let her?
[13:47] #kom.Pako: it depends on my relationship with her
[13:47] #kom.Pako: i could tho
[13:47] #kom.Pako: but
[13:48] Mike: now reverse it
[13:48] #kom.Pako: i could also be worried that the guy might have an interest
[13:48] #kom.Pako: so while i can trust my gf, i cant really trust the guy
[13:48] Mike: of course you cant trust the guy
[13:48] Mike: but if you trust your girl enough then who cares what moves the guy pulls
[13:48] #kom.Pako: what if he pulls a barrel roll
[13:48] Mike: if anything I would want to the guy to do something stupid like that, so then my GF wouldnt see him any more lol
[13:49] Mike: a barrel roll?
[13:49] Mike: hhaha
[13:49] Mike: but like i said, reverse it
[13:49] Mike: how many girls would let their boyfriend go to lunch with their ex gf
[13:49] Mike: i would say 0
[13:49] #kom.Pako: well
[13:49] #kom.Pako: it depends too
[13:50] #kom.Pako: cause you know like i said in friendship between guys and girls, its the guy that usually falls in love
[13:50] #kom.Pako: so for that lunch thing
[13:50] Mike: i see
[13:50] #kom.Pako: if the ex-gf invites the guy, the gf has a reason to not let him go cause she has an interest
[13:51] #kom.Pako: if the guy wants to see the ex, then its also weird cause he still has some interest
[13:51] #kom.Pako: But
[13:51] #kom.Pako: where it differs
[13:52] #kom.Pako: is if its just another friend girl, cause then the gf can be relaxed knowing the girl wont fall for the guy, or at the very laast, she can assume the chances are low. The determining factor here is if the guy is interested in the friend or no, if he can handle it
[13:52] Mike: ya
[13:39] Mike: A homosexual male could have friend ships with girls with no problems
[13:39] #kom.Pako: yea
[13:40] Mike: except they might both be attracted to the same male
[13:40] #kom.Pako: lol
[13:40] Mike: lol
[13:40] #kom.Pako: every girl need a male friend
[13:40] #kom.Pako: theyll often say "i want a gay friend"
[13:40] #kom.Pako: but that friend doesnt need to be gay
[13:40] Mike: i agree
[13:41] Mike: it does seem that male/female friendships always do end when an attraction forms
[13:41] Mike: but your right that it doesnt have to
[13:41] #kom.Pako: yea
[13:42] #kom.Pako: but also think about it
[13:42] #kom.Pako: how many of your female friends are really NOT attractive at all
[13:42] Mike: true
[13:42] #kom.Pako: theres always something sexual to initiate the relationship
[13:42] #kom.Pako: you will never go speak to someone thats totally unnatractive to you
[13:42] Mike: well sure i would
[13:43] Mike: if she was in my class or something
[13:43] Mike: or if i worked with her
[13:43] Mike: lol
[13:43] Mike: not to get to know her on a relationship level though
[13:43] #kom.Pako: well
[13:43] #kom.Pako: lets say im in a class for project and we need to find teammates
[13:44] #kom.Pako: i wont go toward someone that i find really unnactractive
[13:44] #kom.Pako: But i might end up working with one if she's a friend of somebody else i find attractive
[13:44] #kom.Pako: or she might ask me to work with her which i wouldn't refuse even if she is unnattractive
[13:44] Mike: lol what if the unnactractive girl was top of the class?
[13:44] Mike: maybe then?
[13:44] #kom.Pako: i still wouldnt target her i think
[13:44] Mike: well you and I are different then
[13:44] Mike: do you have a GF?
[13:44] #kom.Pako: no
[13:44] Mike: that would change things too
[13:44] #kom.Pako: i guess thats another value to add to the equation
[13:45] Mike: ya
[13:45] #kom.Pako: but like there are a few less attractive girls that i talk to, but im not that close to them simply cause i dont show that much interest
[13:45] Mike: you could also add, how many girlfriends would allow a guy to have girls as their friends?
[13:45] Mike: ya very true
[13:45] #kom.Pako: yea
[13:46] #kom.Pako: well i think many girls will think that friendship between guys and girls ends up in attraction so theres many that wouldnt allow it
[13:46] Mike: yep
[13:46] Mike: but the right girl for you should allow it
[13:46] Mike: there should be no jealousy
[13:46] Mike: let me ask you this
[13:47] Mike: say your dating a girl for 6months now
[13:47] Mike: and she wants to go to lunch with a guy that she dated 3 years ago
[13:47] Mike: and she promises there is nothing to worry about
[13:47] Mike: would you let her?
[13:47] #kom.Pako: it depends on my relationship with her
[13:47] #kom.Pako: i could tho
[13:47] #kom.Pako: but
[13:48] Mike: now reverse it
[13:48] #kom.Pako: i could also be worried that the guy might have an interest
[13:48] #kom.Pako: so while i can trust my gf, i cant really trust the guy
[13:48] Mike: of course you cant trust the guy
[13:48] Mike: but if you trust your girl enough then who cares what moves the guy pulls
[13:48] #kom.Pako: what if he pulls a barrel roll
[13:48] Mike: if anything I would want to the guy to do something stupid like that, so then my GF wouldnt see him any more lol
[13:49] Mike: a barrel roll?
[13:49] Mike: hhaha
[13:49] Mike: but like i said, reverse it
[13:49] Mike: how many girls would let their boyfriend go to lunch with their ex gf
[13:49] Mike: i would say 0
[13:49] #kom.Pako: well
[13:49] #kom.Pako: it depends too
[13:50] #kom.Pako: cause you know like i said in friendship between guys and girls, its the guy that usually falls in love
[13:50] #kom.Pako: so for that lunch thing
[13:50] Mike: i see
[13:50] #kom.Pako: if the ex-gf invites the guy, the gf has a reason to not let him go cause she has an interest
[13:51] #kom.Pako: if the guy wants to see the ex, then its also weird cause he still has some interest
[13:51] #kom.Pako: But
[13:51] #kom.Pako: where it differs
[13:52] #kom.Pako: is if its just another friend girl, cause then the gf can be relaxed knowing the girl wont fall for the guy, or at the very laast, she can assume the chances are low. The determining factor here is if the guy is interested in the friend or no, if he can handle it
[13:52] Mike: ya
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friendship between guys and girls
I've had several discussions with friends lately about the possible existence of friendship between guys and girls.
Several people think it doesn't exist, that the guy always end up falling in love with the girl.
Theres an interesting theory on the subject i read a while back which is called the ladder theory (http://www.laddertheory.com/) basically what it says is that between a girl and a guy, the friendship/love is gonna slowly rise until it reaches a point where the guy falls in love with the girl and decides to tell her, which usually fails since the girl wont be in love with the guys at which point the friendly relationship becomes awkward or ends. Therefore, that theory stipulates that its not possible to have close guy/girl friendship
For my part, i strongly believe in guy/girl friendship as i have several girl friends, but i would say that its a matter of being firmly in controls of your feeling, staying natural and not getting all excited at every "hint" the girl might give you. Because thats how it goes in a guy's head, he will think the girl is interested while it might not be the case. In other words, you need to be somewhat smart to be able to handle guy/girl friendship. If the guy starts putting the girl on a pedestal or starts being too devoted to her, he's done, he will end up telling his feelings to her and the friendship ends.
Several people think it doesn't exist, that the guy always end up falling in love with the girl.
Theres an interesting theory on the subject i read a while back which is called the ladder theory (http://www.laddertheory.com/) basically what it says is that between a girl and a guy, the friendship/love is gonna slowly rise until it reaches a point where the guy falls in love with the girl and decides to tell her, which usually fails since the girl wont be in love with the guys at which point the friendly relationship becomes awkward or ends. Therefore, that theory stipulates that its not possible to have close guy/girl friendship
For my part, i strongly believe in guy/girl friendship as i have several girl friends, but i would say that its a matter of being firmly in controls of your feeling, staying natural and not getting all excited at every "hint" the girl might give you. Because thats how it goes in a guy's head, he will think the girl is interested while it might not be the case. In other words, you need to be somewhat smart to be able to handle guy/girl friendship. If the guy starts putting the girl on a pedestal or starts being too devoted to her, he's done, he will end up telling his feelings to her and the friendship ends.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Emotions while interacting with medias
I was talking with my friend today and at one point he told me that I was missing out on alot of good stuff by not watching TV to which I responded that i was replacing the good stuff with other good stuff by playing video games. Then he said while youre not particularly active while watching a good show/movie on tv, its more entertaining than playing a video game cause theres more emotions.
and i firmly disagree with that no matter how you look at it, im not denying that good tv shows or movies are not entertaining and dont give you real emotions when you get involved with the show or movie, but its definitely not more entertaining.
lets look at both type of medias
in a tv show or movies, the author is entirely in control of whats displayed to the watcher, he can then try to play with different images and sounds to create different emotions, he can also write a really complex story since hes entirely in control of it, the story will develop exactly how he wants it.
In a video game, the player is free to move around and act as he/she wishes to determine the outcome. when you script a game, you dont have a full control on what youre showing, but you can still do alot of things and add scripted events that will surprise the player. The main difference tho lies in the nature of games, youre in control, you are there, you are the character, your actions matters, its not somebody else doing it in front of you and that adds alot to the immersion which id say is at the base of all emotions lived while consuming entertainement products.
Theres different emotions and good feelings I can recall from playing different good games, ill name a few just for the hell of it
Call of duty 1: In the stalingrad mission when youre sent to the front with no gun and are forced to charge the german mg42s unarmed, the first time i played through it i couldnt believed, i was playing a FPS game and i didnt have a gun to be a hero and save the day.
Call of duty 2: at the end of the Pointe du Hoc mission where you fall back to the shore while trying to contain the germans back, the feeling i had while playing that was just great, I was reloading my 2 guns as fast as i could but there were just too many
Also in cod2, at hill400 when you wait for air support to assist you at the top of the hill, then again i had a great feeling, trying to be a hero and kill as many germans as I could.
I think these 3 moments are the most intense moments i lived playing SP games, but theres other cool thats cooler for their RP part
like in Far cry 2 at one point i had to ambush a convoy so i was really high on a mountain with my sniper rifle and tried to snipe the driver, I was so far away the AI had no way to know where I was it just felt cool
Theres also actual RPG games, like kotor1, kotor2 and Dragon age, all 3 had really great stories and the in-depth dialogue system creates a really good immersion in the game, you end up liking your character and your companions quite a bit just like you would in a good tv show.
Also, as times goes on and game technologies improves (better graphics, physics, sounds) and the budgets increases, games with good stories are becoming more common, before you had programmers quickly writing stories but mainly working on the game, now you have teams of professional writers working on stories and its only gonna get better.
But thats for actual story driven games, sure the stories are cool and can give you good emotions, but theres other way to live emotions while playing games. As youre playing games, online games i might add, youre in a real world interracting with real people and when you have people with people, anything can happen. You can find what someone says or do funny, or it can make you mad, or sad, it can be anything. you can do things that makes you feel good or not so much, youre in control after all.
Ive lived all sort of emotions playing different games, the good feeling after winning a game of ut2k4 team deathmatch, seeing the score after 20 minute of intense play and what you had to do to get there.
In Star Wars Galaxies, when I PvPed with a bunch of friends and we worked togheter to beat groups of players from the other faction. I still remember one guy shouting to me on Teamspeak "BURST RUN PAKO BURST RUN" cause my character class could provide the group with a run speed buff.
Or when some guy came on teamspeak crying cause he'd been kicked from the guild ( http://pooregot.ytmnd.com ) it was a hard moment to live for everybody there and I still remember when it happened.
That and all the drama that can happen in all games with people disagreeing with each others, theres nothing more real than these emotions, its not always funny but it can definitely be really intense.
On the good side, theres all the good feelings you can get from being rewarded after accomplishing something difficult, being rewarded of all the hardwork and the good teamwork you had to go through. The sense of happiness you get after completing something difficult, and the even better feeling when you had to work in harmony with other players to do so.
But one of the best feeling you can live while playing games comes while youre actually playing and its what i call "the zone"
Its not a feeling unique to gaming, people generally live it while playing sports, its that feeling you get when you feel so in control of yourself and the game, where you feel like nothing can get past you, that you see everything, that everything and every action you make is right. Thats the best feeling, and the one im looking for when playing games.
Ive felt it while playing goaltender in street hockey or at school, as a player its possible but since you get physically tired after a while, its hard to maintain. Ive mostly felt that feeling playing games like ut2k4 in the middle of a close tdm match, or in guildwars in a good GvG. I havent felt it much playing games on the playstation 3, maybe a little bit when playing nhl 09/10 but it never felt as good as it did when playing Guildwars.
The zone is the best feeling after orgasm in my opinion
and i firmly disagree with that no matter how you look at it, im not denying that good tv shows or movies are not entertaining and dont give you real emotions when you get involved with the show or movie, but its definitely not more entertaining.
lets look at both type of medias
in a tv show or movies, the author is entirely in control of whats displayed to the watcher, he can then try to play with different images and sounds to create different emotions, he can also write a really complex story since hes entirely in control of it, the story will develop exactly how he wants it.
In a video game, the player is free to move around and act as he/she wishes to determine the outcome. when you script a game, you dont have a full control on what youre showing, but you can still do alot of things and add scripted events that will surprise the player. The main difference tho lies in the nature of games, youre in control, you are there, you are the character, your actions matters, its not somebody else doing it in front of you and that adds alot to the immersion which id say is at the base of all emotions lived while consuming entertainement products.
Theres different emotions and good feelings I can recall from playing different good games, ill name a few just for the hell of it
Call of duty 1: In the stalingrad mission when youre sent to the front with no gun and are forced to charge the german mg42s unarmed, the first time i played through it i couldnt believed, i was playing a FPS game and i didnt have a gun to be a hero and save the day.
Call of duty 2: at the end of the Pointe du Hoc mission where you fall back to the shore while trying to contain the germans back, the feeling i had while playing that was just great, I was reloading my 2 guns as fast as i could but there were just too many
Also in cod2, at hill400 when you wait for air support to assist you at the top of the hill, then again i had a great feeling, trying to be a hero and kill as many germans as I could.
I think these 3 moments are the most intense moments i lived playing SP games, but theres other cool thats cooler for their RP part
like in Far cry 2 at one point i had to ambush a convoy so i was really high on a mountain with my sniper rifle and tried to snipe the driver, I was so far away the AI had no way to know where I was it just felt cool
Theres also actual RPG games, like kotor1, kotor2 and Dragon age, all 3 had really great stories and the in-depth dialogue system creates a really good immersion in the game, you end up liking your character and your companions quite a bit just like you would in a good tv show.
Also, as times goes on and game technologies improves (better graphics, physics, sounds) and the budgets increases, games with good stories are becoming more common, before you had programmers quickly writing stories but mainly working on the game, now you have teams of professional writers working on stories and its only gonna get better.
But thats for actual story driven games, sure the stories are cool and can give you good emotions, but theres other way to live emotions while playing games. As youre playing games, online games i might add, youre in a real world interracting with real people and when you have people with people, anything can happen. You can find what someone says or do funny, or it can make you mad, or sad, it can be anything. you can do things that makes you feel good or not so much, youre in control after all.
Ive lived all sort of emotions playing different games, the good feeling after winning a game of ut2k4 team deathmatch, seeing the score after 20 minute of intense play and what you had to do to get there.
In Star Wars Galaxies, when I PvPed with a bunch of friends and we worked togheter to beat groups of players from the other faction. I still remember one guy shouting to me on Teamspeak "BURST RUN PAKO BURST RUN" cause my character class could provide the group with a run speed buff.
Or when some guy came on teamspeak crying cause he'd been kicked from the guild ( http://pooregot.ytmnd.com ) it was a hard moment to live for everybody there and I still remember when it happened.
That and all the drama that can happen in all games with people disagreeing with each others, theres nothing more real than these emotions, its not always funny but it can definitely be really intense.
On the good side, theres all the good feelings you can get from being rewarded after accomplishing something difficult, being rewarded of all the hardwork and the good teamwork you had to go through. The sense of happiness you get after completing something difficult, and the even better feeling when you had to work in harmony with other players to do so.
But one of the best feeling you can live while playing games comes while youre actually playing and its what i call "the zone"
Its not a feeling unique to gaming, people generally live it while playing sports, its that feeling you get when you feel so in control of yourself and the game, where you feel like nothing can get past you, that you see everything, that everything and every action you make is right. Thats the best feeling, and the one im looking for when playing games.
Ive felt it while playing goaltender in street hockey or at school, as a player its possible but since you get physically tired after a while, its hard to maintain. Ive mostly felt that feeling playing games like ut2k4 in the middle of a close tdm match, or in guildwars in a good GvG. I havent felt it much playing games on the playstation 3, maybe a little bit when playing nhl 09/10 but it never felt as good as it did when playing Guildwars.
The zone is the best feeling after orgasm in my opinion
Friday, September 4, 2009
Gaming for kids? I think not
So the other day at a family reunion my mom said I could be a doctor if I didnt play games all the time.
That made me think because i dont have any doubt that gaming good for the brain. its just the image of gaming thats not good, cause if i was reading books all the time it would be fine, or if i a chess champion, or some other well seen hobbies. but no i play video games instead and i could argue that its a particularly good hobby as far as stimulating the brain goes.
the list of benefits is huge, games allowed me to fully integrate several concepts that allow me to play better. I then apply these concepts to real life situations and im able to analyze them quicker and find a solution faster. For example i wrote a blog entry a while back about positioning and pressure while playing games or sports. if youre not immersed in a competitive world that demands you to perform you just dont fully grasp the importance of these things.
Playing Guild Wars at a high level allowed me to learn these things, and i dont think just anyone could play at that level. yo uactually need to be good because in a balanced environment where everyone has access to the same tools. the only way to get the upper hand is to play better, have better teamwork and better strategies. and to get these advantages you actually have to make your brain work hard.
When i was about 15 year olds i used to play unreal tournament 2004, I averaged between 15-35% accuracy with hitscan weapon. How come that number suddenly jumped to 35-50% when I started to play 3 years later after taking a really long break? You dont just magically become much better at aiming if you dont practice, the only explanation i can provide is that during these years i didnt play FPS games i played other games, and in the end i had a better understanding of games, had smarter movement and was able to anticipate better.
If gaming wasnt challenging, if i wasnt good at it, i wouldnt be playing at all and there would be no interest in doing so. I have no doubt gaming played a big positive role in my development and its not wasting time.
That made me think because i dont have any doubt that gaming good for the brain. its just the image of gaming thats not good, cause if i was reading books all the time it would be fine, or if i a chess champion, or some other well seen hobbies. but no i play video games instead and i could argue that its a particularly good hobby as far as stimulating the brain goes.
the list of benefits is huge, games allowed me to fully integrate several concepts that allow me to play better. I then apply these concepts to real life situations and im able to analyze them quicker and find a solution faster. For example i wrote a blog entry a while back about positioning and pressure while playing games or sports. if youre not immersed in a competitive world that demands you to perform you just dont fully grasp the importance of these things.
Playing Guild Wars at a high level allowed me to learn these things, and i dont think just anyone could play at that level. yo uactually need to be good because in a balanced environment where everyone has access to the same tools. the only way to get the upper hand is to play better, have better teamwork and better strategies. and to get these advantages you actually have to make your brain work hard.
When i was about 15 year olds i used to play unreal tournament 2004, I averaged between 15-35% accuracy with hitscan weapon. How come that number suddenly jumped to 35-50% when I started to play 3 years later after taking a really long break? You dont just magically become much better at aiming if you dont practice, the only explanation i can provide is that during these years i didnt play FPS games i played other games, and in the end i had a better understanding of games, had smarter movement and was able to anticipate better.
If gaming wasnt challenging, if i wasnt good at it, i wouldnt be playing at all and there would be no interest in doing so. I have no doubt gaming played a big positive role in my development and its not wasting time.
Reckless driving
couple months ago there was a case on the news where some teenagers stole someones car at night, the owner had another car and he heard them take off so he got in his other car and chased the teens down. in the end the stolen car crashed and 1 one the 2 teenagers died
we didnt hear much afterward but today the latest development came out. the guy who chased down the kids is accused of dangerous driving that caused death
The "by the book" thing you have to do when you get your car stolen like that is to call the police and they will handle it. so in that sense the guy who chased the 2 kids made a mistake.
but seriously if youre in such situation, its kinda hard to just sit tight and wait mostly when you feel you cant act. The driver shouldnt have to pay for having his car stolen or for the kids to take the decision to increase their speed and drive beyond their capacities. The guy can be charged with reckless driving, i dont have a problem with that, but i have a problem with the fact that he could be charged for causing the death of the other teen.
we didnt hear much afterward but today the latest development came out. the guy who chased down the kids is accused of dangerous driving that caused death
The "by the book" thing you have to do when you get your car stolen like that is to call the police and they will handle it. so in that sense the guy who chased the 2 kids made a mistake.
but seriously if youre in such situation, its kinda hard to just sit tight and wait mostly when you feel you cant act. The driver shouldnt have to pay for having his car stolen or for the kids to take the decision to increase their speed and drive beyond their capacities. The guy can be charged with reckless driving, i dont have a problem with that, but i have a problem with the fact that he could be charged for causing the death of the other teen.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Addicted to success
I always had a problem with people speaking of addiction to gaming, i didnt know exactly why, but i knew that it seemed not right. As opposed to hard drugs, gamers do not consume any kind of substance that alters the way their neurotrasmitters behave. Its just someone playing a game. Yet we still hear "scientists" say that gaming can be more addictive than hard drugs. How is it possible?
I read a really interesting article earlier this year about the inexistance of gaming addiction. it was written by a psychanalyst and he was saying that it was always another problem that was the cause of intense gaming. you could never conclude that gaming was the problem, gaming was just the result. Theres no such thing as evil games making people addicted to them.
He also stated that gamers usually have no problem stopping to game when something important comes up. for example a person that has a lot of free time will game alot and once that person gets a job and starts to work the person ahs no problem slowing down on gaming to focus on real life.
But we cannot deny that its not that easy for absolutely everyone, some people do neglect their real life as much as possible to continue to play video games. the question then becomes: why? Why do they neglect their real life, what does the virtual world brings to them.
and the answer is pretty simple, the games bypass real life barriers and creates a virtual context. a context in which the caracteristics are controlled. for example. someone thats not very athletic can play a sports game and be really good at it if that person has the mental capacities to actually be good at the game. the person is not limited by his or her body or socio/economic context to practice an activity. Whats interesting is that games are made to reward the gamer and a game like World of Warcraft surely rewards the gamer alot for accomplishing stuff in the game. This kind of success that some people can find in games that they wouldnt find as often in real life. Obviously constnatly getting rewarded for accomplishing things feels good and its that good feeling that probably gets some people to game alot and even neglect their real life, because in that case, their real life is not as fun as gaming is.
But that only concerns some hardcore gamers, because gaming is not just about escape reality. games are most and foremost a fun hobby. it stimulates the mind, gets people to try and beat different challenges and surpass themselves, online games then get people work togheter to achieve even greater goals. It's just great, its like any sports or board game, but without the physical aspect of sports and without the wait of board game since its real-time, its instant and i could go on for a long while stating the good things of gaming but that would be off topic.
I read a really interesting article earlier this year about the inexistance of gaming addiction. it was written by a psychanalyst and he was saying that it was always another problem that was the cause of intense gaming. you could never conclude that gaming was the problem, gaming was just the result. Theres no such thing as evil games making people addicted to them.
He also stated that gamers usually have no problem stopping to game when something important comes up. for example a person that has a lot of free time will game alot and once that person gets a job and starts to work the person ahs no problem slowing down on gaming to focus on real life.
But we cannot deny that its not that easy for absolutely everyone, some people do neglect their real life as much as possible to continue to play video games. the question then becomes: why? Why do they neglect their real life, what does the virtual world brings to them.
and the answer is pretty simple, the games bypass real life barriers and creates a virtual context. a context in which the caracteristics are controlled. for example. someone thats not very athletic can play a sports game and be really good at it if that person has the mental capacities to actually be good at the game. the person is not limited by his or her body or socio/economic context to practice an activity. Whats interesting is that games are made to reward the gamer and a game like World of Warcraft surely rewards the gamer alot for accomplishing stuff in the game. This kind of success that some people can find in games that they wouldnt find as often in real life. Obviously constnatly getting rewarded for accomplishing things feels good and its that good feeling that probably gets some people to game alot and even neglect their real life, because in that case, their real life is not as fun as gaming is.
But that only concerns some hardcore gamers, because gaming is not just about escape reality. games are most and foremost a fun hobby. it stimulates the mind, gets people to try and beat different challenges and surpass themselves, online games then get people work togheter to achieve even greater goals. It's just great, its like any sports or board game, but without the physical aspect of sports and without the wait of board game since its real-time, its instant and i could go on for a long while stating the good things of gaming but that would be off topic.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Pressure and positioning
I dont know where ill get with this one, probably just a medium to huge rant about pressure and tioning, intensity and quick thinking, that kind of stuff
Cause/consequence. Lets say you have a set closed environments with different values in it. If you change a value, theres a consequence to it. and you have a new environment different from the first one after. Now lets say all these values had different attributes attached to them and depending on how they were sets, it would affect the overall results. The result in the 2nd environment would be different from the first one.
Let's say we have 4 players playing basketball in 2 teams of 2 players. We will play the players Red1(R1), Red2(R2) Blue1(B1) and Blue2(B2). All players are of equal skills, they move same speed, throw same speed and accuracy.
If R1 is facing B1 and R2 is facing B2, and R1 has the ball and tries to shoot the ball in the basket. B1 is gonna be all over it trying to block the shot. R1 cannot try and pull some moves and outrun B1, R1 cannot jump higher than B1 and he cannot try to be faster cause B1 is just as fast. As a result we have a stand still, R1 cannot beat B1.
Same scenario, lets say R1 wanted to pass the ball to his teamate R2 so he could try and do something to get out of this stand still situation. Unfortunately R2 is not any superior to B2 and cannot be open to receive a pass because B2 will intercept any attempt. Once again, were at a stand still.
Now lets say B2 has a brain disorder and is completely unable to move backward. what R2 could do is go behind B2 that way B2 becomes completely useless. Now R1 could pass the ball to R2. Now that R2 has the ball and B2 cannot do anything. R2 could try shooting the ball in the basket.
Unfortunately R2 cannot throw that far and he needs to get closer to the basket. If he moves forward tho. B2 will be able to get back on him and we will be in a new stand still. because B2 has the same physical abilities as R2.
Now lets say R1 drinks a redbull and is able to jump 5 feet high, something that B1 cannot do. R2 could throw the ball toward R1 and he would throw it in the basket and score.
So how did we get out of the initial stand still? We added things to the red team and took away some from the blue team. to give an advantage to the red team. We could make it a ton more complex by adding more players, more values, take away things from the red things while giving strenghts to the blue team, we could create different rules to alter the way the game is played. but im sure all of you get the idea by now (if not you can just stop reading now)
Eventually we could create a game like chess, a sport or some other game, some kind of competition where the different values compete against one another to try and find the best. The fun part here is that the more complex you make it and the more value you add to it, the more harder it becomes to understand it and the harder it is to be able to take all the values in consideration at the same time. we will call that a mental challenge.
mental challenges are found in everyday life. in every situation you have to use your logic to make choices. Your choices will be based on calculations you make weighting the pros and cons of a situation.
For example, its 1am I should go sleep. why should i go sleep? because if i wait some more before going to sleep, ill wake up later or ill be more tired the next day if i dont wake up later. I will also be more tired than i currently am if i wait before going to bed. And then i take other values in consideration: I got plenty of time to sleep late tomorrow so it doesnt matter if i sleep later tomorrow, therefore i can afford to not go to bed right now. I also want to keep writing this post, am i awake enough to keep going or do i feel like i cannot continue without getting some sleep: im still well awake.
As you can see i just calculated the different reasons to judge if i should go sleep right now or wait a little more based on what i want and what will happen based on my decisions. Anyone can do such things to take little decisions like what i just did.
Every action or phenomena in an environment has a consequence, it changes the final result, it changes the different values and you get something new.
Im really tempted, by starting to describe the way a sport such a hockey would be played, start simply with circles and dots and add values to it until you get an actual game, but i might just be too lazy for that and people might be annoyed to read me stating the obvious. There is 1 thing i want to make clear tho, cause/consequences dont simply happen in 2v2 basketball games where red team faces an identical blue team. its in our everyday life, in every facet of it. If im dancing salsa with someone and we both move forward at the same time, we will collide. so as my partner moves foward i need to move backward to give my partner room. This is called Harmony or we could call it teamwork. Where my actions complete my partner's action perfectly as if we were 1 entity. The best way to get that is to get to know your strenght and weakness, then your teammates strenght and weaknesses, and try to maximize efficiency by communicating and knowing how people react to what you do.
Oh, but i just noticed I havent really talked about the 2 concepts presented in the title of this blog entry.
Lets say to have a piece of land thats as big as 4 units and you have 2 factions wanting to conquer it all.
If both factions have identical conquering capabilities and they start conquering the 4 units at the same time, they will both get 1 half of the available land.
Lets say 1 of the faction stayed outside of the 4 units and didnt do anything while the other faction would start conquering. Eventually that other faction would get the entire thingw/o running into any resistance.
Now lets say the faction that sat out doesnt want the other one to get all the land so they start to conquer at the same time. then we get the same scenario as the first one where each get 1 half.
Now lets say the 2nd faction was 2 twice as fast, the first one would get 1/4 and the other one would get 3/4. Now this situation vaguely resembles the basketball example.
Now lets say the first faction doesnt want the other one to conquer all the land but they still sit out as the 2nd faction conquers the whole thing. Now the first faction is not happy because the other one has all the land. but they didnt do anything to counter the progression of their enemy so they have no choice than to accept their defeat.
Resisting to the other team by making their advance harder is called applying pressure. If theres nothing made to stop the other team, the other team has NO reason to slow down or stop themselves from progressing toward their goal.
That means lets say youre playing a sport or a game. Youre gonna be putting pressure on your opponent or opting team to either make your team progress toward your goal OR slow their progress. If you keep the pressure up, you will do what you can to do good(if you have more skills that usually means winning) if you decide to diminish the pressure then you will be pressured more yourself by your opponent(if youre being outskilled, that usually means losing). Then all the different values come into play to differentiate the 2 opponents.
The last concept i want to talk about is intimately linked to the pressure concept. its called tioning. In team games, a team will tions their elements on the playing board in a certain way to maximize efficiency. If the game is simple and both team tioning's is perfect then we have a stand still and its skills and different values that will determine a winner. The more complex the game gets, the more complex getting perfect tioning on both side gets. this is when it starts to matter. the team with the better tioning will be able to exploit the other teams weakness more easely given that advantage.
Its pretty simple, if youre somewhere, youre not elsewhere, youre there. if you should be elsewhere and youre not there. then theres a weak link elsewhere. but youre stronger than you should be where youre at. For example back to our 2v2 from earlier:
Lets say B2 stops covering R2 and decides to sit down on the field. R2 will be open for a pass from R1 and have a freeway to the basket and the possibility to score points.
Now lets say that B2 decides to help B1 cover R1 instead of sitting down. R2 will be open. but its gonna be really hard for R1 to do anything now that he has so much pressure on him.
Lets say R1 was really talented and managed to bypass B1 and B2 and give the ball to R2 Then R2 would have an easy time scoring points.
But lets bring R1 back to the skill levels of the other players and add another value called luck. the fact that both B1 and B2 are covering him means his chances to succeed are lower than when it was only B1 but he still has a chance to manage to give the ball to R1. if he suceeds, then R1 will have an easy time to score points, but its gonna be tough for R1.
So in a world where you have to match your oponent's skills with your own skills and tioning, you have to find a way to give yourself an advantage while diminishing your opponents advantage, that is if you wish to win anything.
As you can see tho, you want to maximize the pressure on the other team, but since youre only allowed certain values to compete (you can only have lets say 5 players against another 5)then you need to find a way to tion yourself well enough to try and get an edge on your opponent while also countering them in the best way you can.
And the more values you add in your environment the more complex it gets. its pretty fun to observe how it goes in a closed environment (a video game, a sport, a board game), but these are things that compose the entire world around us.
Cause/consequence. Lets say you have a set closed environments with different values in it. If you change a value, theres a consequence to it. and you have a new environment different from the first one after. Now lets say all these values had different attributes attached to them and depending on how they were sets, it would affect the overall results. The result in the 2nd environment would be different from the first one.
Let's say we have 4 players playing basketball in 2 teams of 2 players. We will play the players Red1(R1), Red2(R2) Blue1(B1) and Blue2(B2). All players are of equal skills, they move same speed, throw same speed and accuracy.
If R1 is facing B1 and R2 is facing B2, and R1 has the ball and tries to shoot the ball in the basket. B1 is gonna be all over it trying to block the shot. R1 cannot try and pull some moves and outrun B1, R1 cannot jump higher than B1 and he cannot try to be faster cause B1 is just as fast. As a result we have a stand still, R1 cannot beat B1.
Same scenario, lets say R1 wanted to pass the ball to his teamate R2 so he could try and do something to get out of this stand still situation. Unfortunately R2 is not any superior to B2 and cannot be open to receive a pass because B2 will intercept any attempt. Once again, were at a stand still.
Now lets say B2 has a brain disorder and is completely unable to move backward. what R2 could do is go behind B2 that way B2 becomes completely useless. Now R1 could pass the ball to R2. Now that R2 has the ball and B2 cannot do anything. R2 could try shooting the ball in the basket.
Unfortunately R2 cannot throw that far and he needs to get closer to the basket. If he moves forward tho. B2 will be able to get back on him and we will be in a new stand still. because B2 has the same physical abilities as R2.
Now lets say R1 drinks a redbull and is able to jump 5 feet high, something that B1 cannot do. R2 could throw the ball toward R1 and he would throw it in the basket and score.
So how did we get out of the initial stand still? We added things to the red team and took away some from the blue team. to give an advantage to the red team. We could make it a ton more complex by adding more players, more values, take away things from the red things while giving strenghts to the blue team, we could create different rules to alter the way the game is played. but im sure all of you get the idea by now (if not you can just stop reading now)
Eventually we could create a game like chess, a sport or some other game, some kind of competition where the different values compete against one another to try and find the best. The fun part here is that the more complex you make it and the more value you add to it, the more harder it becomes to understand it and the harder it is to be able to take all the values in consideration at the same time. we will call that a mental challenge.
mental challenges are found in everyday life. in every situation you have to use your logic to make choices. Your choices will be based on calculations you make weighting the pros and cons of a situation.
For example, its 1am I should go sleep. why should i go sleep? because if i wait some more before going to sleep, ill wake up later or ill be more tired the next day if i dont wake up later. I will also be more tired than i currently am if i wait before going to bed. And then i take other values in consideration: I got plenty of time to sleep late tomorrow so it doesnt matter if i sleep later tomorrow, therefore i can afford to not go to bed right now. I also want to keep writing this post, am i awake enough to keep going or do i feel like i cannot continue without getting some sleep: im still well awake.
As you can see i just calculated the different reasons to judge if i should go sleep right now or wait a little more based on what i want and what will happen based on my decisions. Anyone can do such things to take little decisions like what i just did.
Every action or phenomena in an environment has a consequence, it changes the final result, it changes the different values and you get something new.
Im really tempted, by starting to describe the way a sport such a hockey would be played, start simply with circles and dots and add values to it until you get an actual game, but i might just be too lazy for that and people might be annoyed to read me stating the obvious. There is 1 thing i want to make clear tho, cause/consequences dont simply happen in 2v2 basketball games where red team faces an identical blue team. its in our everyday life, in every facet of it. If im dancing salsa with someone and we both move forward at the same time, we will collide. so as my partner moves foward i need to move backward to give my partner room. This is called Harmony or we could call it teamwork. Where my actions complete my partner's action perfectly as if we were 1 entity. The best way to get that is to get to know your strenght and weakness, then your teammates strenght and weaknesses, and try to maximize efficiency by communicating and knowing how people react to what you do.
Oh, but i just noticed I havent really talked about the 2 concepts presented in the title of this blog entry.
Lets say to have a piece of land thats as big as 4 units and you have 2 factions wanting to conquer it all.
If both factions have identical conquering capabilities and they start conquering the 4 units at the same time, they will both get 1 half of the available land.
Lets say 1 of the faction stayed outside of the 4 units and didnt do anything while the other faction would start conquering. Eventually that other faction would get the entire thingw/o running into any resistance.
Now lets say the faction that sat out doesnt want the other one to get all the land so they start to conquer at the same time. then we get the same scenario as the first one where each get 1 half.
Now lets say the 2nd faction was 2 twice as fast, the first one would get 1/4 and the other one would get 3/4. Now this situation vaguely resembles the basketball example.
Now lets say the first faction doesnt want the other one to conquer all the land but they still sit out as the 2nd faction conquers the whole thing. Now the first faction is not happy because the other one has all the land. but they didnt do anything to counter the progression of their enemy so they have no choice than to accept their defeat.
Resisting to the other team by making their advance harder is called applying pressure. If theres nothing made to stop the other team, the other team has NO reason to slow down or stop themselves from progressing toward their goal.
That means lets say youre playing a sport or a game. Youre gonna be putting pressure on your opponent or opting team to either make your team progress toward your goal OR slow their progress. If you keep the pressure up, you will do what you can to do good(if you have more skills that usually means winning) if you decide to diminish the pressure then you will be pressured more yourself by your opponent(if youre being outskilled, that usually means losing). Then all the different values come into play to differentiate the 2 opponents.
The last concept i want to talk about is intimately linked to the pressure concept. its called tioning. In team games, a team will tions their elements on the playing board in a certain way to maximize efficiency. If the game is simple and both team tioning's is perfect then we have a stand still and its skills and different values that will determine a winner. The more complex the game gets, the more complex getting perfect tioning on both side gets. this is when it starts to matter. the team with the better tioning will be able to exploit the other teams weakness more easely given that advantage.
Its pretty simple, if youre somewhere, youre not elsewhere, youre there. if you should be elsewhere and youre not there. then theres a weak link elsewhere. but youre stronger than you should be where youre at. For example back to our 2v2 from earlier:
Lets say B2 stops covering R2 and decides to sit down on the field. R2 will be open for a pass from R1 and have a freeway to the basket and the possibility to score points.
Now lets say that B2 decides to help B1 cover R1 instead of sitting down. R2 will be open. but its gonna be really hard for R1 to do anything now that he has so much pressure on him.
Lets say R1 was really talented and managed to bypass B1 and B2 and give the ball to R2 Then R2 would have an easy time scoring points.
But lets bring R1 back to the skill levels of the other players and add another value called luck. the fact that both B1 and B2 are covering him means his chances to succeed are lower than when it was only B1 but he still has a chance to manage to give the ball to R1. if he suceeds, then R1 will have an easy time to score points, but its gonna be tough for R1.
So in a world where you have to match your oponent's skills with your own skills and tioning, you have to find a way to give yourself an advantage while diminishing your opponents advantage, that is if you wish to win anything.
As you can see tho, you want to maximize the pressure on the other team, but since youre only allowed certain values to compete (you can only have lets say 5 players against another 5)then you need to find a way to tion yourself well enough to try and get an edge on your opponent while also countering them in the best way you can.
And the more values you add in your environment the more complex it gets. its pretty fun to observe how it goes in a closed environment (a video game, a sport, a board game), but these are things that compose the entire world around us.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A media for rich people?
During the latest GDC, Warren Spector, founder of the studio Junction Point, brought a problem to daylight concerning video games:
New video games are too expensive making them only accessible to a select few. he thinks that the industry should lower the cost to the lowest possible cost that still allows profit. giving the example of having 20$ allowed you to go to the movies but not buy a video game or 20$ allowed you to buy a music CD but not buy a video game and ill add to that 20$ lets you buy a movie but not buy a video game.
While putting all new games on sale for 20$ sounds unrealistic, significantly lowering the prices actually makes alot of sense. Why, well theres many single player games that only last between 7 and 10 hours. some of them offer a little bit of replayability value and others have a multiplayer mode that can extend the life of a game. It costs me 10$ to go to the movies and watch a good movie, but it cost me 60$ to play a 10 hour game with, generally, a simpler story. if we go strictly by time spent playing. 30 or 40$ for a game would already make more sense. except some games can last you hundreds of more hours like Call of duty 4 for example. but games with a good multiplayer mode AND that is played by many players is not found around every corner.
Like i said, theres too many games that only last less than 10 hours and after its done. To the consumer, it just doesnt make sense to spend 60$ on such titles.
Secondly, lowering the price of video games, would actually make many more copies of the game sell, and make the whole thing alot more accessible, more games, more consoles, more gaming pcs. simply because it would be easier to rentabilize the hardware as you would be able to buy many games for it. More people would get into gaming, more people would have fun, more people would understand what gaming is etc etc. Beside, if new titles were selling or 20$, paying another 10$ for extra content would be less ridiculous than what it can be currently. (No EA, im not gonna pay 10$ to have Arwen and 2 multiplayer maps in Lord of the Rings Conquest)
Lastly, One big issue thats plaguing the video game industry are the sales of pre-owned games. people who dont want to pay 60$ to play a game right away just wait to buy it used and pay less. While the industry makes money off of the initial game, the retailers make the rest of the profit on the used games. As a result, theres much less new copies of games that are being sold, and many people dont keep all their games, they will re-sell (particularly those 10 hour games). If the price of all games was 20$, people would actually be much less tempted to resell their games and might hold on onto them more. and more people would buy brand new games and not bother waiting to get a pre-owned copy for couple bucks cheaper.
It just makes so much sense for games to sell for significantly less money. one one hand for the consumers, on the other hand for the developpers and change the image of the industry away from "a media for rich people"
New video games are too expensive making them only accessible to a select few. he thinks that the industry should lower the cost to the lowest possible cost that still allows profit. giving the example of having 20$ allowed you to go to the movies but not buy a video game or 20$ allowed you to buy a music CD but not buy a video game and ill add to that 20$ lets you buy a movie but not buy a video game.
While putting all new games on sale for 20$ sounds unrealistic, significantly lowering the prices actually makes alot of sense. Why, well theres many single player games that only last between 7 and 10 hours. some of them offer a little bit of replayability value and others have a multiplayer mode that can extend the life of a game. It costs me 10$ to go to the movies and watch a good movie, but it cost me 60$ to play a 10 hour game with, generally, a simpler story. if we go strictly by time spent playing. 30 or 40$ for a game would already make more sense. except some games can last you hundreds of more hours like Call of duty 4 for example. but games with a good multiplayer mode AND that is played by many players is not found around every corner.
Like i said, theres too many games that only last less than 10 hours and after its done. To the consumer, it just doesnt make sense to spend 60$ on such titles.
Secondly, lowering the price of video games, would actually make many more copies of the game sell, and make the whole thing alot more accessible, more games, more consoles, more gaming pcs. simply because it would be easier to rentabilize the hardware as you would be able to buy many games for it. More people would get into gaming, more people would have fun, more people would understand what gaming is etc etc. Beside, if new titles were selling or 20$, paying another 10$ for extra content would be less ridiculous than what it can be currently. (No EA, im not gonna pay 10$ to have Arwen and 2 multiplayer maps in Lord of the Rings Conquest)
Lastly, One big issue thats plaguing the video game industry are the sales of pre-owned games. people who dont want to pay 60$ to play a game right away just wait to buy it used and pay less. While the industry makes money off of the initial game, the retailers make the rest of the profit on the used games. As a result, theres much less new copies of games that are being sold, and many people dont keep all their games, they will re-sell (particularly those 10 hour games). If the price of all games was 20$, people would actually be much less tempted to resell their games and might hold on onto them more. and more people would buy brand new games and not bother waiting to get a pre-owned copy for couple bucks cheaper.
It just makes so much sense for games to sell for significantly less money. one one hand for the consumers, on the other hand for the developpers and change the image of the industry away from "a media for rich people"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)