MikeGosot's forum posts

#1 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

@Peanut: That sucks. >: Still, the game looks like a lot of fun, and it's cheap! Cheap is good!

#2 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

@Peanut said:

As another little bit of info and also as a bit of a bump, Firebase Industries (dudes who made the game) have a shooter on XBLIG called Orbitron: Revolution and if you own that, you can jump into the credits to get a promo code. Enter that code in the Arcadecraft promo section and you'll get the Orbitron cabinet in-game, which is a great starting cabinet that seems to do pretty well.

Orbitron is also on Steam Greenlight! Just a question, can you play the games?

#3 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

Well, the Dead Island bullshit was pretty bad.

#4 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

That IS on Steam Greenlight, i just voted on it. It looks extremely interesting, and i'll check it out.

#5 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

I wonder how many people that are offended/disgusted by the fact that video games fund gun manufacturers will actually boycott games.

@Senno said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Senno said:

Absolutely brilliant Eurogamer article. Yet one thing bothers me about it. Call of Duty is routinely suggested that it is sold to children. I hope that is not the case. The horror and the horrible act of bringing to death someone at the end of a gun is nothing compared to the carnage and delightful glee that can be seen on a childs face as they play that title. As a name brand, it has a responsiblity to ensure that children aren't playing their product. Something as simple as monitoring it's online multiplayer (which I've heard is full of screaming adolescents anyway) and banning them.

*pounds head* No it does not!

Call of Duty has no more responsibility to make sure that children aren't playing it as Captain Crunch has a responsibility to make sure kids are eating healthy. This is a free society, one in which you unfortunately have personal responsibility. And if you have children, they are not the responsibility of people you don't even know. The television is not supposed to make decisions about what your kids should be watching, YOU ARE. And remember that an M rating doesn't mean it's illegal to watch or play, it's illegal to sell to a minor. Do you suggest Gamestop employees look at every adult buying an M rated game suspiciously, question them whether or not their kid or their little brother is going to play this copy?

It makes me crazy to see people who believe they're being progressive and free-thinking advocate the removal of civil liberties they're not directly using at the moment.

To absolve themselves of responsibility isn't fair to the children. At the very least, they should take complaints about that kind of activity very seriously. I'm not absolving the parents or even the childs responsibility in this - nor in the retailers. Note that I stated that I hoped it wasn't being sold to children. Children shouldn't be playing that game, let alone buying it. And if they are playing it, the developer should have in place a system that can weed them out. And the parents should be admonished for their ignorance.

Ahn... Why? Why should the developers take care of the children? I mean, if it wants to do so, fine, but ultimately, that decision should come to the parents. The parents should teach about those games, and research about them too. Children are different, and simply saying "Children shouldn't play games like that" is ignoring how different children react to the game. My little sister(10 years old) plays No More Heroes and MadWorld, both pretty violent games, but she hates violence in the real world. Even though there are matters for which she's clearly not mature enough, she can handle violence in video games, so why should she stop playing?

In the article, they mention the kid played Call Of Duty in the house of a friend and that the kid wanted to buy guns in the future because of it. So his parents should teach him how to be a responsible gun owner, specially because he already saw the consequences of bringing a gun in a school. I believe his grandfather was trying to teach that to him, but his statements("You don't get a life by shooting at a person") shows he clearlys does not understand about Call Of Duty, and, at least in my opinion, understanding about the game can only make the situation better.

TL;DR - I believe the answer is better parenting, not blind regulation by the industry/government, specially because children are different.

#6 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

@ZanzibarBreeze said:

@MikeGosot said:

So... Minarchism? It's an interesting proposition, even if i have my doubts about the ability of the people to limit the power of the state to just take care of the laws. About the analogy, it's an interesting situation to think about. I think that matter is discussed in "The Machinery Of Freedom", but i'm not sure, because... You know, i haven't read that yet. Still, i have to admit you have a point. But i'm willing to discuss more about the subject, so, if you're interested, send me a PM or something. I love talking about politics!

Exactly, minarchism. I prefer to call it the "night watchman" state though, because "night watchman" sounds dope. PM me anytime as well.

Night watchman state always makes me think of a country ruled by Batman, so i say minarchism.

#7 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

@ZanzibarBreeze said:

@MikeGosot said:

If said situation happens, and we don't agree to a court but i show it to the public, wouldn't less people be willing to work for you/buy your products? You would lose more by not paying me than for paying me. I can't say i'm an anarcho-capitalist because i need to read way more about it to call myself an anarcho-capitalist, but i love, love, love to talk about it.

It's certainly possible that you could take that course of action, though what you propose has more to do with the free market as opposed to resolving disputes. I drew that super quick analogy to show how a court system would become all muddled up if it was left to the free market.

Here's another analogy: I crash into your car, completely wiping it out, and I refuse to pay for the damage. You file suit against me in one of this country's many courts -- Court Bombastica, or whatever. But I refuse to recognize the authority of Court Bombastica, and I say that I'll not be attending court and I'll not be agreeing to that court's verdict. Under anarcho-capitalism, there's no universal police force that can bring me to court. You would literally have to kidnap me and extort me to get some compensation for your car.

The philosopher Robert Nozick said that's not a situation that a society could function under. Under his brand of libertarianism (which is, by the way, what most people are referring to when the use the term libertarianism), here's all the state does: it has the police, and it runs the courts. All the state manages is disputes between parties, and it stays out of everything else. If you have a court system and a police force that everybody must abide by, you eliminate those kind of free market battles that would occur under anarcho-capitalism (as in my analogy).

So... Minarchism? It's an interesting proposition, even if i have my doubts about the ability of the people to limit the power of the state to just take care of the laws. About the analogy, it's an interesting situation to think about. I think that matter is discussed in "The Machinery Of Freedom", but i'm not sure, because... You know, i haven't read that yet. Still, i have to admit you have a point. But i'm willing to discuss more about the subject, so, if you're interested, send me a PM or something. I love talking about politics!

#8 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

@ZanzibarBreeze said:

@MikeGosot said:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if you and me were trying to make a contract, that means we think we will be in a better situation after the contract. So, why would we mess up the situation?

Disagreements over contracts happen all the time. If I contract you to do work for me, you send me an invoice for said work, and I refuse to pay you, then I'm breaking the contract -- so we go to court.

If said situation happens, and we don't agree to a court but i show it to the public, wouldn't less people be willing to work for you/buy your products? You would lose more by not paying me than for paying me. I can't say i'm an anarcho-capitalist because i need to read way more about it to call myself an anarcho-capitalist, but i love, love, love to talk about it.

#9 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

@ZanzibarBreeze said:

@SathingtonWaltz said:

I find Anarcho-Capitalism to be a very fascinating ideology, it's certainly entertaining to read up on. I don't mean that in a condescending way either! While I have doubts that such a system could work, it's got a lot of very intelligent individuals supporting it.

Robert Nozick disagreed with anarcho-capitalism on the grounds that a society with free market courts and security services can't function properly. If you and I disagree over a contract, and you sue me in Court Gerstmann and I sue you in Court Famous Davis, and you call Shoemaker Security to summon me to your court and I get the Caravella Zaibatsu to wrangle you into my court, then nobody wins and it's all a mess. (In this equation, I think Patrick is, like, the Watcher, and he's just up in the clouds shaking his head or something.)

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if you and me were trying to make a contract, that means we think we will be in a better situation after the contract. So, why would we mess up the situation?

#10 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

@bibamatt: ...That counts as "Just take a look at [Insert Country Here]".