Speaking of EVE, it actually has many of the features the author laments, but as many who make his same complaint, won't acknowledge or play it because its "not fantasy", "don't want to be a spaceship", or some other nonsensical reasoning for not really sticking with it since there are so few good options out there if this is really the gameplay designs you favor.
Those are not the reasons why people don't like Eve. Eve's gameplay is arcaic. Its nowhere near acceptable in today's standards. There's no real collision detection, no checks for line of sight, you don't have direct control over your ship, damage dealing revolves almost solely around auto attack... its horrible. If you take a look at Fractured Space you see how space combat should be done in an MMORPGs today.
This is just hilariously untrue. You have more control over your ship in EVE than in any other space based game ever made, ever. There's even direct control these days using WASD. Cause double clicking in space in the direction you want to fly is sooo much worse than holding down AAAAAAA until you're pointing where you want to go. Hooo boy, that double clicking just drains all the fun!
Auto attack? If, by that, you mean guns will keep shooting until you turn them off, then yeah, but that's kind of a no brainer. I kinda like to shoot things until they stop shooting back, but I guess you just like to shoot once and then be like "But I shot you! Someone make the bad man stop shooting back!"
But auto attack? Anyone who thinks you can just turn your guns on and hit orbit is either the worst EVE player ever or never got past the tutorial, cause I'd drain your capacitor, disrupt your guns and web you down until your transversal hits zero and then poof. Every fight, even a "simple" 1v1 has so many variables that it's mind boggling.
There IS collision detection, we use it every single day to ram other ships away from objects that we don't want them to be near or slow them down. There is no line of sight, but it's also in space. The reason space is called space is because it's filled with space.. nothing, nada, for trillions of miles in all directions, so line of sight really doesn't ever matter at all, ever.
relating to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations:
a social club.
2.
seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable; gregarious.
3.
of, relating to, connected with, or suited to polite or fashionable society:
a social event.
4.
living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation:
People are social beings.
5.
of or relating to human society, especially as a body divided into classes according to status:
social rank.
6.
involved in many social activities:
We're so busy working, we have to be a little less social now.
7.
of or relating to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community:
social problems.
Where in that list is "grouping to kill mobs" being the defining factor behind socializing in online games? It could just be chatting. It could be trading. It doesn't have to be grouping up to kill mobs, even by the definition you linked. That's your agenda bias showing. Did you even read your own definition carefully?
Vermillion is implying that solo or non-grouping activities weren't social and that only grouping up in mmos is social. I'm not seeing Jean-Luc saying grouping isn't a social activity, but that it's not the definitive social activity. That's the difference.
Clearly you didn't read anything that you posted either as more than half of those definitions support the point that social doesn't just mean existing in a public place. You actually have to engage the other people in some capacity.
Nobody, literally nobody chats in modern mmos. They hit a button, get teleported to a dungeon, and faceroll through it without every saying a word to anyone, and collect their "reward" and rinse and repeat.
Questing to level involves zero interaction with other humans in modern mmo's. Pretty much the games are designed around removing any barriers to actually having to socialize with someone.
Once again, being social does not mean being in an area with other people, every one of those definitions involves engagement of other people.
The entire POINT of MMOs was to facilitate interaction with other HUMANS. The type of crap that goes on in MMOs existed in single player games well before that. Games like Darkfall or Morrowind had massive open worlds with tons of quests and sandbox elements. Games like Jedi Knight Dark Forces and KOTOR, Final Fantasy, etc, had awesome, immersive storylines. Games like Zelda, FF, etc had epic boss fights. None of these required you to be around other people.
The designers of Meridian 59, EQ, UO, envisioned a game where hundreds if not thousands of humans could come together either to combat each other, or work together. Whether it was against other humans or against NPCs. But the ENTIRE point was to WORK TOGETHER in some capacity. If you wanted to play a game with a chat box you had games like starcraft, diablo, counter strike, etc.
And just for the record, "agenda bias" isn't real, the term you were looking for is confirmation bias.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
@OP, let me guess - before even reading the title of the article - it is some negative anti-something rant!? People around the interwebz like agreeing with such.
(30 sec later) Ah, I was right. Even the classical soapbox theme was quite predictable
You do realize the irony of your post don't you.
Yes, people complain on the internet, just like water is wet and the sun is hot.
What's your point?
The point was rather simple, anyway I'll try once more:
Last march, someone on reddit (was it MMORPG?) linked Gordon Walton's interview, in which he reflected on WoW's impact on investors and industry in general.
Needless to say, folks agreed on autopilot, lots of pre-WoW memories, lots of textwalls about all that was lost and how much better it was etc.
Seeing all that passion, I briefly explained that he actually has a project (It happened during Crowfall's Kickstarter) aiming to repair some damage, and gave link for anybody interested. I was quickly downvoted to invisibility.
Top upvoted posts were some guys soapboxRanting about how WoW ruined everything.
Speaking of EVE, it actually has many of the features the author laments, but as many who make his same complaint, won't acknowledge or play it because its "not fantasy", "don't want to be a spaceship", or some other nonsensical reasoning for not really sticking with it since there are so few good options out there if this is really the gameplay designs you favor.
Excuse me? How does not liking a game based on the setting or avatar appearance make any less sense than not liking it for it's systems? I think EVE is right in there along with the other bad options.
There are good reasons to not like games, even EVE, (like it's combat mechanics) but setting and avatar appearance are just silly ones.
Of course, because only one's own opinion matters. And thinking that way isn't silly at all.
What is silly is thinking all opinions are equally valid. While some are based on logic and critical thinking, making them defensible, others are just based on emotional and oft times irrational preferences.
Disqualifying an entire game because you can't jump, do a reverse mouse look, or play dress up with your avatar definitely fall into the silly reasons category, in my informed opinion.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Speaking of EVE, it actually has many of the features the author laments, but as many who make his same complaint, won't acknowledge or play it because its "not fantasy", "don't want to be a spaceship", or some other nonsensical reasoning for not really sticking with it since there are so few good options out there if this is really the gameplay designs you favor.
Excuse me? How does not liking a game based on the setting or avatar appearance make any less sense than not liking it for it's systems? I think EVE is right in there along with the other bad options.
There are good reasons to not like games, even EVE, (like it's combat mechanics) but setting and avatar appearance are just silly ones.
Of course, because only one's own opinion matters. And thinking that way isn't silly at all.
By that logic nothing is silly and all opinions matter equally. Guess again.
Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon.
Opinions are backed by logic and emotions. You judge them based on those. I don't understand your point.
Your premise is that some opinions matter less. (Inferior to your own, right?)
It's a valid question to wonder "who picks the opinions that count?" It's a primary question for the media, and should be for anybody interested in politics. Because the opinion filters (news outlet producers) may decide the races more than anything else.
Which candidates are given air time, and which ignored?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
relating to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations:
a social club.
2.
seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable; gregarious.
3.
of, relating to, connected with, or suited to polite or fashionable society:
a social event.
4.
living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation:
People are social beings.
5.
of or relating to human society, especially as a body divided into classes according to status:
social rank.
6.
involved in many social activities:
We're so busy working, we have to be a little less social now.
7.
of or relating to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community:
social problems.
Where in that list is "grouping to kill mobs" being the defining factor behind socializing in online games? It could just be chatting. It could be trading. It doesn't have to be grouping up to kill mobs, even by the definition you linked. That's your agenda bias showing. Did you even read your own definition carefully?
Vermillion is implying that solo or non-grouping activities weren't social and that only grouping up in mmos is social. I'm not seeing Jean-Luc saying grouping isn't a social activity, but that it's not the definitive social activity. That's the difference.
6 involved in many social activities
Community with other in order to hunting (killing mod) , classes requirement , knowing and keep community with other . territory relate matter (hunting ground ,mod ground) Deal with the loot and sharing . ect ...
Humans by nature are no more social than animals. Our brain affects our perception and beliefs as we cast judgement and opinions.
Pack of wolves, herd of elephants, colony of ants, flock of birds, school of fish, I would say animals are pretty damn social. Some of which have no self interest, but self aware and would willingly kill themselves in defense of their own.
We are at the top of the food chain because we are smarter than other earth animals. There is certainly animals stronger than us.
"We" are at the top of the food chain because it's a "we". You would have been dead a long time ago without the help of countless individuals. Even today, from the Dr. who gave you immunizations to the farmers who feed you. Are you some how suggesting that you would have survived alone in a jungle against a lion because you're smarter, or that a single cell organism wouldn't take you down because you knew how to cover your twigs and berries with leaves?
The reason we are smarter is because we have had forums that allowed people to gather and pass down collective knowledge. Thank your cave drawers and your teachers.
You could take down any animal alive with a gun if you are proficient at it, don't need other people for that. Disease has the ability to take you down whether you hang out around no one or a billion people. I am suggesting the ability to survive against any animal due to your wits.
It's the modern culture that forgot how to be individually strong and self sufficient. We depend on our governments for many things. If the food industry ever goes down. Millions of people would starve because they don't know how to farm or hunt themselves.
It's the modern culture that forgot how to be individually strong and self sufficient. We depend on our governments for many things. If the food industry ever goes down. Millions of people would starve because they don't know how to farm or hunt themselves.
Kind of hard to farm or hunt animals when you live in a concrete city... oh wait, we farm mini marts and hunt each other!
Opinions are backed by logic and emotions. You judge them based on those. I don't understand your point.
Your premise is that some opinions matter less. (Inferior to your own, right?)
It's a valid question to wonder "who picks the opinions that count?" It's a primary question for the media, and should be for anybody interested in politics. Because the opinion filters (news outlet producers) may decide the races more than anything else.
Which candidates are given air time, and which ignored?
I'm sorry where have I stated anything about some opinions matter less then mine? We are not putting anything to a vote, I can't follow your logic of how you are comparing criticism to an election.
Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon.
Of course, because only one's own opinion matters. And thinking that way isn't silly at all.
What is silly is thinking all opinions are equally valid. While some are based on logic and critical thinking, making them defensible, others are just based on emotional and oft times irrational preferences.
Disqualifying an entire game because you can't jump, do a reverse mouse look, or play dress up with your avatar definitely fall into the silly reasons category, in my informed opinion.
SO disliking playing as a ship is irrational? Disliking Sci-fi so skipping scifi based games is irrational? I think it's irrational to think taste should only apply to game mechanics, when games are a sum of all of their parts.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Pack of wolves, herd of elephants, colony of ants, flock of birds, school of fish, I would say animals are pretty damn social.
Many animals aren't social, and none have the social skills we do.
You mention fish, fish don't recognize their owners, nor do they understand individualism within their own species. One study showed that Focal fish might recognize their owner but that would be an exception to the rule, and it's a controversial study that others haven't been able to repeat.
Here is one of the study excerpts that tried to prove these fish can recognize individual patterns and remember them.
And this type of fish would be the exception. Outside of this controversial study, there has never been proof of any kind that fish recognize each other.
They are anything but social. They might swim together, but they have no idea who they're swimming with. They know it's the same species, but that's pretty much where it stops, they don't understand individualism.
The majority of animals can't recognize others as individuals. Insect can't identify and remember others as individuals, they understand the difference between species, they don't understand individualism. Several mammals and most birds can. But many of those fail the mirror test, they don't understand they're looking at themselves.
Succeeding in the mirror test is a pretty important requirement if you want to prove a certain type of animal shows social behavior that is anything like humans. Very few animals consistently succeed in the mirror test, only some mammals and a few birds do, no insects or fish succeed in it.
Even monkeys, they need a lot of time to consistently succeed in the mirror test, and those are supposed to be the intelligent animals, and they have a really hard time even recognizing themselves, let alone others.
What you're left with is a very small subsection of animals who are truly capable of socializing. Within that group there are very few animals who are monogamous, and very few who show a sense of long-term loss if their partner passes away. One of the exceptions is the jackdaw, you will always see it with one partner, it only has one partner for life, if that partner passes away, they will mourn, and become very attached to humans.
I am impressed by the amount of info you provided. Scientist and religion has been trying to prove how different we are from animals. Does it really matter if we are different on a physical level? I think that because we have an advanced brain we see the water we are swimming in while most other animals do not.
You and I could be social without even speaking a word. Just by walking or sitting together. Not all humans are monogamous either. It's a choice with us because we have a cognitive brain that can determine right or wrong, when something feels good or bad. Yes, we eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And sometimes we make choices which we know are bad for us.
Of course, because only one's own opinion matters. And thinking that way isn't silly at all.
What is silly is thinking all opinions are equally valid. While some are based on logic and critical thinking, making them defensible, others are just based on emotional and oft times irrational preferences.
Disqualifying an entire game because you can't jump, do a reverse mouse look, or play dress up with your avatar definitely fall into the silly reasons category, in my informed opinion.
SO disliking playing as a ship is irrational? Disliking Sci-fi so skipping scifi based games is irrational? I think it's irrational to think taste should only apply to game mechanics, when games are a sum of all of their parts.
Disliking nothing is irrational. But for instance saying this game is trash or silly because it is Sci-fi then yes, it is irrational. Isn't it? ^^
Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon.
At this point, this entire thread has become irrational. There is someone in here saying that a dictionary is irrelevant, seriously Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
At this point, this entire thread has become irrational. There is someone in here saying that a dictionary is irrelevant, seriously Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
How people use words dictate what dictionary definitions are, not the other way around.
Not at all, in this age of improved communication tools we are far more able to resist and correct those who muddle the meaning of words and language.
Ignorance can easily be pointed out , and language migrations slowed down if not stopped entirely.
Already major corporations have established a standard "Business English" which not only is consistently used in world-wide communication, but in the firm I work for actually won't let you be promoted to VP unless one has a solid command of it.
It is a great example of standards driving people, and not the other way around.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
At this point, this entire thread has become irrational. There is someone in here saying that a dictionary is irrelevant, seriously Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
How people use words dictate what dictionary definitions are, not the other way around.
Not at all, in this age of improved communication tools we are far more able to resist and correct those who muddle the meaning of words and language.
Ignorance can easily be pointed out , and language migrations slowed down if not stopped entirely.
Already major corporations have established a standard "Business English" which not only is consistently used in world-wide communication, but in the firm I work for actually won't let you be promoted to VP unless one has a solid command of it.
It is a great example of standards driving people, and not the other way around.
I've been thinking about knowledge, ignorance, and it's impact on gaming and other subjects. I was thinking how much more my imagination worked when I knew less.
I decided to google weather knowledge kills creativity. I found a few articles that suggest that it does.
What knowledge does is tell you there is a right way and a wrong way. You have to do things the right way which was decided by someone else.
This is not much different from modern games. They tell you this is the path to follow. This is how you accomplish that task. This is how you get from x to y. This is how you group. This is how your raid. This is how you build your character.
Basically the point is there isn't room for imagination and knowledge at the same time in most cases. If someone decides they want to reinvent the light bulb in a different way is that wrong? If people in different parts of the country speak with a different dialect or give different meanings to the same words is that wrong?
I believe the biggest thing that has been lost in the modern world is imagination. Kids google all the answers, but rarely work to come up with their own unique solution to a problem. The same is true of adults. Our society is being taught that there is always a right way to do things and we have to follow a specific path.
Without ignorance and imagination a lot of things we have today wouldn't exist.
At this point, this entire thread has become irrational. There is someone in here saying that a dictionary is irrelevant, seriously Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
How people use words dictate what dictionary definitions are, not the other way around.
Not at all, in this age of improved communication tools we are far more able to resist and correct those who muddle the meaning of words and language.
Ignorance can easily be pointed out , and language migrations slowed down if not stopped entirely.
Already major corporations have established a standard "Business English" which not only is consistently used in world-wide communication, but in the firm I work for actually won't let you be promoted to VP unless one has a solid command of it.
It is a great example of standards driving people, and not the other way around.
I've been thinking about knowledge, ignorance, and it's impact on gaming and other subjects. I was thinking how much more my imagination worked when I knew less.
I decided to google weather knowledge kills creativity. I found a few articles that suggest that it does.
What knowledge does is tell you there is a right way and a wrong way. You have to do things the right way which was decided by someone else.
This is not much different from modern games. They tell you this is the path to follow. This is how you accomplish that task. This is how you get from x to y. This is how you group. This is how your raid. This is how you build your character.
Basically the point is there isn't room for imagination and knowledge at the same time in most cases. If someone decides they want to reinvent the light bulb in a different way is that wrong? If people in different parts of the country speak with a different dialect or give different meanings to the same words is that wrong?
I believe the biggest thing that has been lost in the modern world is imagination. Kids google all the answers, but rarely work to come up with their own unique solution to a problem. The same is true of adults. Our society is being taught that there is always a right way to do things and we have to follow a specific path.
Without ignorance and imagination a lot of things we have today wouldn't exist.
While I don't think that is the exact reason things have gone the way they have with MMORPGs, it is true that without innovation things quickly devolve into a running of circles and taking the path of least resistance. On the other hand, that often is the goal in the first place of exploring a solution. We want to find the most effective answer to a problem so that future people don't have to. If our answer doesn't work anymore, then it's up to others to figure out a better answer.
At this point, this entire thread has become irrational. There is someone in here saying that a dictionary is irrelevant, seriously Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
How people use words dictate what dictionary definitions are, not the other way around.
Not at all, in this age of improved communication tools we are far more able to resist and correct those who muddle the meaning of words and language.
Ignorance can easily be pointed out , and language migrations slowed down if not stopped entirely.
Already major corporations have established a standard "Business English" which not only is consistently used in world-wide communication, but in the firm I work for actually won't let you be promoted to VP unless one has a solid command of it.
It is a great example of standards driving people, and not the other way around.
I've been thinking about knowledge, ignorance, and it's impact on gaming and other subjects. I was thinking how much more my imagination worked when I knew less.
I decided to google weather knowledge kills creativity. I found a few articles that suggest that it does.
What knowledge does is tell you there is a right way and a wrong way. You have to do things the right way which was decided by someone else.
This is not much different from modern games. They tell you this is the path to follow. This is how you accomplish that task. This is how you get from x to y. This is how you group. This is how your raid. This is how you build your character.
Basically the point is there isn't room for imagination and knowledge at the same time in most cases. If someone decides they want to reinvent the light bulb in a different way is that wrong? If people in different parts of the country speak with a different dialect or give different meanings to the same words is that wrong?
I believe the biggest thing that has been lost in the modern world is imagination. Kids google all the answers, but rarely work to come up with their own unique solution to a problem. The same is true of adults. Our society is being taught that there is always a right way to do things and we have to follow a specific path.
Without ignorance and imagination a lot of things we have today wouldn't exist.
While I don't think that is the exact reason things have gone the way they have with MMORPGs, it is true that without innovation things quickly devolve into a running of circles and taking the path of least resistance. On the other hand, that often is the goal in the first place of exploring a solution. We want to find the most effective answer to a problem so that future people don't have to. If our answer doesn't work anymore, then it's up to others to figure out a better answer.
Perhaps part of the reason is that you are working to hard to bring in more people. When MMOs started they were simple made for fun because they had never been done before. Yes they wanted to make money, but like Steve Jobs said he would never have founded Apple if he knew IBM was going to be so big. Making games with statistics is the wrong approach. It is the opposite of creative thinking and imagination. It is building games based on facts. All you really have to do is create a world that is fun to explore and let the players use their imaginations for the rest. IMO is not fun to be greeted by tutorials and then go through many very directed quests. I'd rather be plunked into the middle of nowhere with some rags and a stick and figure out what can be done on my own. I think that is the kind of thing that encourages imagination. Of course if you are building a game from a statistical standpoint then it's hard to make a game that encourages imagination.
Comments
Auto attack? If, by that, you mean guns will keep shooting until you turn them off, then yeah, but that's kind of a no brainer. I kinda like to shoot things until they stop shooting back, but I guess you just like to shoot once and then be like "But I shot you! Someone make the bad man stop shooting back!"
But auto attack? Anyone who thinks you can just turn your guns on and hit orbit is either the worst EVE player ever or never got past the tutorial, cause I'd drain your capacitor, disrupt your guns and web you down until your transversal hits zero and then poof. Every fight, even a "simple" 1v1 has so many variables that it's mind boggling.
There IS collision detection, we use it every single day to ram other ships away from objects that we don't want them to be near or slow them down. There is no line of sight, but it's also in space. The reason space is called space is because it's filled with space.. nothing, nada, for trillions of miles in all directions, so line of sight really doesn't ever matter at all, ever.
Nobody, literally nobody chats in modern mmos. They hit a button, get teleported to a dungeon, and faceroll through it without every saying a word to anyone, and collect their "reward" and rinse and repeat.
Questing to level involves zero interaction with other humans in modern mmo's. Pretty much the games are designed around removing any barriers to actually having to socialize with someone.
Once again, being social does not mean being in an area with other people, every one of those definitions involves engagement of other people.
The entire POINT of MMOs was to facilitate interaction with other HUMANS. The type of crap that goes on in MMOs existed in single player games well before that. Games like Darkfall or Morrowind had massive open worlds with tons of quests and sandbox elements. Games like Jedi Knight Dark Forces and KOTOR, Final Fantasy, etc, had awesome, immersive storylines. Games like Zelda, FF, etc had epic boss fights. None of these required you to be around other people.
The designers of Meridian 59, EQ, UO, envisioned a game where hundreds if not thousands of humans could come together either to combat each other, or work together. Whether it was against other humans or against NPCs. But the ENTIRE point was to WORK TOGETHER in some capacity. If you wanted to play a game with a chat box you had games like starcraft, diablo, counter strike, etc.
And just for the record, "agenda bias" isn't real, the term you were looking for is confirmation bias.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Last march, someone on reddit (was it MMORPG?) linked Gordon Walton's interview, in which he reflected on WoW's impact on investors and industry in general.
Needless to say, folks agreed on autopilot, lots of pre-WoW memories, lots of textwalls about all that was lost and how much better it was etc.
Seeing all that passion, I briefly explained that he actually has a project (It happened during Crowfall's Kickstarter) aiming to repair some damage, and gave link for anybody interested. I was quickly downvoted to invisibility.
Top upvoted posts were some guys soapboxRanting about how WoW ruined everything.
Disqualifying an entire game because you can't jump, do a reverse mouse look, or play dress up with your avatar definitely fall into the silly reasons category, in my informed opinion.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
(It's very important to ask, when we're judging and discarding opinions, "Who decides?")
everyone is using the same tool to make games, so they all look the same.
and expectations exceed budget.
It's a valid question to wonder "who picks the opinions that count?" It's a primary question for the media, and should be for anybody interested in politics. Because the opinion filters (news outlet producers) may decide the races more than anything else.
Which candidates are given air time, and which ignored?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Community with other in order to hunting (killing mod) , classes requirement , knowing and keep community with other .
territory relate matter (hunting ground ,mod ground)
Deal with the loot and sharing .
ect ...
It's the modern culture that forgot how to be individually strong and self sufficient. We depend on our governments for many things. If the food industry ever goes down. Millions of people would starve because they don't know how to farm or hunt themselves.
We are not putting anything to a vote, I can't follow your logic of how you are comparing criticism to an election.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You and I could be social without even speaking a word. Just by walking or sitting together. Not all humans are monogamous either. It's a choice with us because we have a cognitive brain that can determine right or wrong, when something feels good or bad. Yes, we eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And sometimes we make choices which we know are bad for us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Ignorance can easily be pointed out , and language migrations slowed down if not stopped entirely.
Already major corporations have established a standard "Business English" which not only is consistently used in world-wide communication, but in the firm I work for actually won't let you be promoted to VP unless one has a solid command of it.
It is a great example of standards driving people, and not the other way around.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I decided to google weather knowledge kills creativity. I found a few articles that suggest that it does.
What knowledge does is tell you there is a right way and a wrong way. You have to do things the right way which was decided by someone else.
This is not much different from modern games. They tell you this is the path to follow. This is how you accomplish that task. This is how you get from x to y. This is how you group. This is how your raid. This is how you build your character.
Basically the point is there isn't room for imagination and knowledge at the same time in most cases. If someone decides they want to reinvent the light bulb in a different way is that wrong? If people in different parts of the country speak with a different dialect or give different meanings to the same words is that wrong?
I believe the biggest thing that has been lost in the modern world is imagination. Kids google all the answers, but rarely work to come up with their own unique solution to a problem. The same is true of adults. Our society is being taught that there is always a right way to do things and we have to follow a specific path.
Without ignorance and imagination a lot of things we have today wouldn't exist.