9th November 2005, 2:47 PM
When you say "random racing", do you mean you don't get any choice as to what vehicle you command or what track you race on? Now, a random option is nice, but it should never be forced. They don't do that in normal multiplayer, what possible excuse could justify that sort of thing on online multiplayer that doesn't apply to standard multiplayer? Oh and, I am familiar with this as the system link mode of Double Dash did this.
The lack of chat limits the rest of us just to keep Nintendo from being sued. They argued for so long that the fun of multiplayer was in the human interaction more than the actual competition. I can see a lot coming from there and I agree to an extent. So, why would they take out human interaction almost completely leaving just the competition? It's hypocritical, a contradiction, a logical inconsistancy. Again, why not just password protect the thing? The purchaser of the game will be provided with a little pamphlet with the needed password to unlock whatever chat they have in the game. The buyer then has the ability to decide if that feature will be unlocked or not. The buyer should always be the parent if the parent is to have any sort of moral restriction on what content their children will be exposed to. The child should never just be tossed a wad of cash and told to "buy whatever game they want". In this scenario, the parent is to blame in all cases where the child is somehow exposed to a cursing idiot online (that and the idiot). I DO think people should be punished for ignorance. Well, that isn't accurate. I suppose more accurately, people should be held accountable for WILLING ignorance, that is, the decision not to seek out information readily available. Life is an active process, it isn't automatic! One must ACT to achieve goals, not expect them to happen just by wishing for them to be so! The extension of that is a parent that wants their children guarded must be an active part of it. The parent should not expect the entire world to simply do the guarding for the parent so the parent no longer needs to worry or act towards that goal. This isn't to say the police don't have a role. They are an extension of acting to achieve protection, in this case, setting up a force to seek out and apprehend those who commit crimes. Just trying to have the government out and out ban content is not going to do any good. An undesired restriction like that is one that people will attempt to work around. Morality should function not as a restriction but rather as a logical means of obtaining goals. If it is merely thought of as restricting, any person with such a set of morals will simply weasel around such morals to attain their goals. If the moral is "no murder", as such, one may simply play a game of semantics if they truly want to get rid of someone but are suddenly "burdened" by such a rule. It's not murder, it's cleansing the infidels. Murder I now redefine as kililng whoever I think doesn't deserve it. And with a definition like that, murder could never actually be committed anyway, and so murder would be a nonexistant concept void of any meaning in the real world. The moral has simply been phased into something that doesn't get in the way. Rather, a moral should be something more along the lines of both a guideline of actions and an explanation of how said actions will aid one in their goals. Violence leads to counter violence, lowered moral in people around you, lowered happiness in them, and in turn, lowered cooperation with you, leading to more violence. In the end, ending of lives around you only leads to a lack of one's own goals. The emotional desire for those around you to be happy is fine, but this moral has to stand on logical grounds or it will collapse. In this case, realizing exactly how it aids you in your goals is assurance that so long as you stay rational minded, you will adhere to it. Huh, whatd'ya know, rational thinking CAN provide a moral framework, even if it lacks that emotional appeal when expressed in such a fasion.
Wait, where was I? Oh yes, if they want to protect their children, they need to act in a way that will truly protect them. It is not in the best interests of the child to simply teach them that reality will conform to their will on how it should operate. Therefor, it is not in the best interests of the child for the parent to act as though it does and get mad at Nintendo for not removing an option like in-game chat completely. Therefor, any parent trying to get angry at something like that is damaging the child more than helping it.
What do you think of this? Is there some critical flaw in my thinking here that reduces everything I said into what could easily be compaired to a burning bag on the front porch? You know, disgusting but begging for attention, and when someone finally listens and goes for it, they ruin their shoes.
The lack of chat limits the rest of us just to keep Nintendo from being sued. They argued for so long that the fun of multiplayer was in the human interaction more than the actual competition. I can see a lot coming from there and I agree to an extent. So, why would they take out human interaction almost completely leaving just the competition? It's hypocritical, a contradiction, a logical inconsistancy. Again, why not just password protect the thing? The purchaser of the game will be provided with a little pamphlet with the needed password to unlock whatever chat they have in the game. The buyer then has the ability to decide if that feature will be unlocked or not. The buyer should always be the parent if the parent is to have any sort of moral restriction on what content their children will be exposed to. The child should never just be tossed a wad of cash and told to "buy whatever game they want". In this scenario, the parent is to blame in all cases where the child is somehow exposed to a cursing idiot online (that and the idiot). I DO think people should be punished for ignorance. Well, that isn't accurate. I suppose more accurately, people should be held accountable for WILLING ignorance, that is, the decision not to seek out information readily available. Life is an active process, it isn't automatic! One must ACT to achieve goals, not expect them to happen just by wishing for them to be so! The extension of that is a parent that wants their children guarded must be an active part of it. The parent should not expect the entire world to simply do the guarding for the parent so the parent no longer needs to worry or act towards that goal. This isn't to say the police don't have a role. They are an extension of acting to achieve protection, in this case, setting up a force to seek out and apprehend those who commit crimes. Just trying to have the government out and out ban content is not going to do any good. An undesired restriction like that is one that people will attempt to work around. Morality should function not as a restriction but rather as a logical means of obtaining goals. If it is merely thought of as restricting, any person with such a set of morals will simply weasel around such morals to attain their goals. If the moral is "no murder", as such, one may simply play a game of semantics if they truly want to get rid of someone but are suddenly "burdened" by such a rule. It's not murder, it's cleansing the infidels. Murder I now redefine as kililng whoever I think doesn't deserve it. And with a definition like that, murder could never actually be committed anyway, and so murder would be a nonexistant concept void of any meaning in the real world. The moral has simply been phased into something that doesn't get in the way. Rather, a moral should be something more along the lines of both a guideline of actions and an explanation of how said actions will aid one in their goals. Violence leads to counter violence, lowered moral in people around you, lowered happiness in them, and in turn, lowered cooperation with you, leading to more violence. In the end, ending of lives around you only leads to a lack of one's own goals. The emotional desire for those around you to be happy is fine, but this moral has to stand on logical grounds or it will collapse. In this case, realizing exactly how it aids you in your goals is assurance that so long as you stay rational minded, you will adhere to it. Huh, whatd'ya know, rational thinking CAN provide a moral framework, even if it lacks that emotional appeal when expressed in such a fasion.
Wait, where was I? Oh yes, if they want to protect their children, they need to act in a way that will truly protect them. It is not in the best interests of the child to simply teach them that reality will conform to their will on how it should operate. Therefor, it is not in the best interests of the child for the parent to act as though it does and get mad at Nintendo for not removing an option like in-game chat completely. Therefor, any parent trying to get angry at something like that is damaging the child more than helping it.
What do you think of this? Is there some critical flaw in my thinking here that reduces everything I said into what could easily be compaired to a burning bag on the front porch? You know, disgusting but begging for attention, and when someone finally listens and goes for it, they ruin their shoes.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)