alanschu

Agreed. Dumbing down games != more people buying (i.e. appealing to mainstream) It just makes people angry.

Simpler than a straight line? Other than just "make believing?" :D

Yes yes we know

Boo to hold outs :angry: Although in the interests of sport, I tend to agree with my right-wing, go go capitalism roommate that teams shouldn't just be left to their own devices. Then you get boring baseball, where the good teams are always good, and the crap teams are always crap. I like a bit of variety in my sports.

It also makes wearing the mask look less silly. win-win!

Railroads actually looked the best I think in the original Civ, when they were just a straight line connection.

Many people seem to :D

Well, you also weigh the need of building the road over building other improvements. Given the 3D map, I suspect this will happen. You can already tell what tiles are being worked from the 3D map....I don't think it'd be too hard to make them look like they're being worked in a more modern way :D

He'll never retire :D

I suspect the rail networks will be less extreme too. But besides, nothing will look bad with the new 3D engine :D

If the stats are so hard to get, then how do you know how prevalent therapy is for video game related issues. They were getting a kick out of playing a game though, "killing" non-living polygons. You can't say that Wolf3d doesn't count because it has bad graphics...especially considering the graphics at the time were awesome and looked more like a person than anything else at the time...and then say that suddenly we can't distinguish between polygons and reality. Shooting a light gun still does not provide training for firing an actual gun. And furhtermore, how useful would this "training" be, since you'd be stuck in one spot. Don't nitpick on a mere technicality. YOU still posted it. And it doesn't change the fact that your post mentioned he was itching for a fight at one moment, but then at the next moment claim the desensitizing didn't work. But I guess if that's all you got

They are eliminating the trade bonus of roads for Civ 4, in an attempt to get rid of the pointless networks of roads :D

Moose is good. I still like him :D

Therapy statistics would be a stellar way for the activists to demonstrate how bad violent video games are. No they wouldn't. They'd explore all options, simply for no other reason than to get the most out of the game. It does not go beyond playing a video game, especially when Manhunt awards more points for more gruesome deaths. It could just be that they want the high score. Fortunately, playing video games does not give them that training. Clicking a mouse button != pulling a trigger. Despite the millions of rounds of ammunition I've fired in video games, I still jammed a Glock pistol the first time I fired it because I didn't know how to shoot it properly. What do you mean? You said he was itching for a fight.

It certainly wouldn't hurt. Didn't you mention something about the "Prairies" in an earlier post. Bonus influence for being an Albertan

Hmmm. I can see a concession about travelling too far on a railroad limiting whether or not you can attack. And I always edited my game so that boats (particularly the more modern ones) could move waaaay faster. I always did think that was dumb ^_^

Grub made a classic mistake in performing this "experiment." He performed it on himself. He cannot possible control for any expectations he may have about the experiment. If he even had a little bit of an expectation that going through what he was planning to do would make him more likely to get into a fight, then he's already going to skew his data. Researcher bias. It's why the double-blind method was created. It's like when Ebbinghaus did memory experiments with himself. They were scientifically invalid, because his expectations of his tests skewed the experiment before it even started. (To be fair, Ebbinghaus didn't try to tell anyone otherwise. He was just trying something that no one up until that time had thought about trying).

I have no itention of sorting through that lot <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fixed the quote tags.

No, I wouldn't. Because I'd suspect MOST kids have played what are classified as violent video games. You can't read ANYTHING into that number. It tries to find a link when there isn't one. If the 80% of kids that "had played what were classified as violent video games" are in there because of playing violent video games, then where the heck are the rest of the millions and millions of kids that aren't in young offender's institutions. Nevermind that virtually ALL of the kids in young offenders instituations come from less than stellar environments.

What on Earth are you talking about? And violence in the media in general. Oh. My. God. Just *imagining* it gets me emotional. Very likely the first thing I'll think of would be the family of the person...as it would likely strike up horrible memories that I endured when my brother was killed in a motorcycle accident. I have a grasp of reality. And I have an idea on how I will react if someone was shot right in front of me. I get emotional watching ACTORS that portray realistic events getting shot (i.e. Saving Private Ryan, or Band of Brothers). Watching a nameless soldier, wounded crying out "Momma" is horrifying. It's also why I love the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan (and virtually all of Band of Brothers). Given the testimonials from D-Day veterans about how real the scene was depicted, I get a sense of that being what actually happened. And I don't feel bad just for the heroic Americans and whatnot....but also for the Germans in the pillboxes that get torched alive by a flamethrower. I have no idea what you're referring to. To my calling you an elitist??? Really? Therapy, or Psychology? They are to VERY different things. If it's really as big of a deal as you make it out to be, then the activists would be letting us know all about it. They're not actually stabbing someone in the eye though. They're taking pleasure out of playing a video game. Which has nothing to do with our discussion about video game violence. I agree with your notion that fear of punishment stops a lot of violent crime. You're also downplaying the humanity of it all. See how someone reacts when they are responsible for the death of someone. Go interview the guy that hit my brother, and see how happy of an event that was for him (even though it was an accident...neither side was at fault). You make it sound like killing a person is an easy thing to do. When did things turn to sex? I thought we were discussing the chap that posted those myths. And the correlations still don't prove anything aside from there being a relationship. And even then it doesn't prove that because the relationship could be due to a third, unseen variable. Furthermore, proof is never required for acts to be taken seriously. All it takes is a bunch of self-righteous elitists that think they know better than other people to insist it be taken seriously. EDIT: FIXED UBB QUOTE TAGS

*ding* The "evidence" that case studies show for violent video games making violent people equally supports the claim that violent people prefer to play violent video games. It also fails to ignore a host of other variables, which even the Surgeon General (hey, we have no problem believing him when he tells us smoking is bad for us) says are more important to a child's aggression levels than a video game. But noooo, we look at the fact that the kid played a video game. We ignore the fact that 90% of boys play video games, so it's almost guaranteed that if one performs a violent act, then he probably played a video game....and probably a violent one at one time or another. You get the old school media harping about how Doom created the monsters of Columbine, despite the fact that the rest of the world had also played Doom.....6 years earlier. And given 90% of boys play video games, you could argue that an overwhelming majority of them do not display the anti-social acts that the media harps on about. In fact it almost, seems like it might have something to do with some sort of confounding variables When I was 12, I was playing Doom like crazy. Wolfenstein 3D was awesome, and I enjoyed a good shoot 'em up game. I didn't think twice when I saw that impaled body twitching and bloodly, satanic symbols all over the place. But it didn't stop me from crying when I went gopher hunting with an air rifle with my brother, and shot my first gopher. I probably wouldn't have thought too much about it, but I happened to be right beside it, and looked into its eyes as the poor thing was sufferring and dying. I couldn't stomach it and my brother had to put it out of its misery. But I guess the fact that I can mow down counter-terrorists in Counterstrike makes me some sort of monster. It also ignores the possible outlets that videogames can provide. I'd much rather have people perform gory, twisted acts on someone in Manhunt than in real life. When I get pissed, I'll load up a game of Counterstrike and shoot up some people. Better then going off and getting drunk and doing something else potentially worse.

Case studies perhaps...but not all studies are case studies. And case studies cannot see anything more than a correlation. I fail to see the point honestly. All you have said is that society has gotten more tolerant to violent video games. You haven't made any claim that it somehow makes people more desensitized to violence. I've killed probably millions of virtual entities in video games, but I doubt I'd particularly enjoy watching someone get shot in real-life. I certainly wouldn't treat it as just something that's happening and for the most part ignore it. I see....so it's possible for people to see that a zombie is a fictional entity, but not a videogame character It's also presumptious and elitist of you to think that someone that does play a game like Manhunt to kill people in gory ways requires therapy. It someone that does that to a real person that needs therapy. Just to clarify: They aren't killing human beings....they're playing a video game...no one dies No, he's not wrong. His statement is true. You're just not reading it correctly. Correlational data only shows that variables are related. It proves nothing. Which is exactly what he said...there's no conclusive proof.

I don't think it's that ridiculous for it to become faster than Sea movement, considering fast boats move at like 40 knots, which is like 45 mph (and those are the destroyers.....bigger boats move slower). But it's not faster than air movement in Civ 3. For air movement all you do is click "Rebase" and bam they're there.

You can get fronts, by using railroads to bring reinforcements from across the country. Just like WW1

You can get fronts, by using railroads to bring reinforcements from across the country. Just like WW1