If necessity is the mother of invention,

edited November 2006 in General
then boredom is surely the heroine-addicted, neglectful mother of philosophy. I bite my lip through every class period, knowing that my classmates are sick of my direct, scientifically proven, psychological explanations for these "great mysteries" of life.

I propose a challenge: Offer any issue (NONPOLITICAL, I don't want anyone bringing up gun-control or abortion) issue and we will see if our collective minds cannot accomplish a suitible solution. I have traveled to other forums, bolstered by my positive experiences with the Inkammich (my first forum) only to discover how very unique an experience it is it have an average IQ over 70. Let us use our collective powers of....OKness, for the bettermeant of mankind.
«1

Comments

  • edited November 2006
    I am currently battling a severe bout of procrastination over getting a short paper done about searching and hash tables for a programming class. Is that an issue? I think you need to be more specific about what constitutes a valid issue for this.
  • edited November 2006
    Procrastination can possibly be good for you. A solution might be to invent another project even more boring and more important than the short paper and you will find your productivity on all other things increasing naturally.

    Or look at some of these links.

    (And NOT THESE LINKS.)

    jason
    erstwhile procrastinologist
  • edited November 2006
    Routine combats procrastination pretty well ime.
    I think getting into a pattern of getting things out of the way and activating yourself is the only way to go.

    But then, I don't consider processing information procrastinating.
    that can really get out of hand if you don't have structure, though.
  • edited November 2006
    I am the greatest (worst) procrastinator ever. Waiting until the weekend before to do a month-long project is a way of life for me. It seems like I get work done faster if there isn't a due date. Even when I get a fun assignment, I helplessly wait until the last minute even though I would've done it right away had it been optional. Long-term schedules don't work for me. I just carefully plan out EVERY MINUTE of the evening before and the morning that the assignment is due. If every little thing works just right (it rarely does), then the thing will be ready to turn in at just the right time. I can't help it: if it has to get done, it'll be delayed.
  • edited November 2006
    I think maybe people who procrastinate a lot have just never learned to plan ahead or are lacking routine.
    Or the kind I am thinking of anyway.

    It can also be medical apparently. A friend of mine is currently getting Ritalin because he is too unfocused to make things happen. It’s pretty much like a miracle pill.
    He is a really smart guy but he never gets anything done and the difference is really quite dramatic.


    Edit: I use the expression miracle pill because the difference is really dramatic, not like "omg panacea" in case that comes up.
  • edited November 2006
    Geez, I should probably actually look into that. I tend to focus on actual work for like ten-twenty minutes before I have to take a break of equal or lesser value. Or greater.

    I just take a lot of breaks, but it gets done in the end. I think the stress helps me concentrate.
  • edited November 2006
    I have two essays due Monday which I haven't even started yet! Woooooooo!
  • edited November 2006
    I can focus, just not on the right thing y'see. And as for the structure and routine, my life is disgustingly structured. Problems arise from the fact that this structure seems to drain me of my desire to do anything at all. If I really want something done, I gotta take a day off work, and I gotta get up really early in the morning and work on it.
  • edited November 2006
    I was going to post something about how I dont procrastinate, but I decided to do it tommorow.
  • edited November 2006
    Issue: In the video game industry there is an insatiable beast, and that is the beast of technology. For years there has been a steadfast race between game companies to come out with the best looking graphics possible.

    The industry is becoming topheavy. Twenty years ago a game could be made for only a couple hundred bucks at most. Get a few guys together, they write up a basic plot, code it together, make a few sprites, and boom, game. Now games are on average multimillion dollar endeavors, often breaking the $20 million mark.

    Pros:

    1. Games are extremely pretty to look at. Better graphics offer a better sense of realism, allowing the player to be better absorbed in the game.

    2. Game designers get a chance to really flex their artistic muscles, and players get to enjoy the minute details that flood the worlds of the games they play.

    Cons:

    1. High costs are stifling innovation. Unless your name is Will Wright or Shigeru Miyamoto, you typically don't get to make a brand new game idea and get it off the ground. Game companies are still big business run on Wall Street. They still have to live by the bullshit stigma of "increasing shareholder wealth," and this can most easily and safely be accomplished by creating sequels to hit games (Madden, anyone?).

    2. High costs are going to keep coming back to hurt gamers. Next gen games continue to rise in prices. If I recall correctly, the game industry made the change to CDs from cartridges BECAUSE they were getting too expensive. We are being required to foot the bill for these high budget games, whether we really care about excellent graphics or not. Game prices will continue to rise. PS3 games are rumored to be anywhere between $60 and $99. Wii first party games will be $50, but third party will possibly be more.

    Those are the only pros and cons I can think of off the top of my head, but there are more.

    (Edit): The questions I pose to you fine Orange Beltians, then, is which is better? Graphics or innovation?

    If it is graphics, then what is the industry doing right? What is it doing wrong? If it is the industry, then what is it doing right/wrong?

    DISCUSS.
  • edited November 2006
    XoLore wrote: »
    Is that an issue? I think you need to be more specific about what constitutes a valid issue for this.

    I was quite specific. An issue that can be solved. This is a problem you are having. As long as it has an implied, "How can we fix this situation?", then it's fine.
    Just try to keep it from being questions of what is everyone's opinion on *blank*, and try to bring up obstacles in life that we can try to overcome.
    hlavco wrote: »
    I am the greatest (worst) procrastinator ever. Waiting until the weekend before to do a month-long project is a way of life for me. It seems like I get work done faster if there isn't a due date. Even when I get a fun assignment, I helplessly wait until the last minute even though I would've done it right away had it been optional. Long-term schedules don't work for me. I just carefully plan out EVERY MINUTE of the evening before and the morning that the assignment is due. If every little thing works just right (it rarely does), then the thing will be ready to turn in at just the right time. I can't help it: if it has to get done, it'll be delayed.

    That's pretty much how I am. I think this type of procrastination has more to do with fear an official project. Even if you know it'll be easy and maybe even fun, deep-down it's still work, and that causes stress. So, we avoid it.
    jason, excellent links, I really liked that first one, and the MacGyver one.
  • edited November 2006
    Yeah that my McGyver link is gonna eat up alot of my free time, hopefully I'll have a little more in the coming weeks.

    On the graphics issue.

    I completely agree, as nice as the games are going to look, how can anyone be asked to pay one hundred dollars for a single game? That's far beyond anything i'm willing to spend on video games.

    Let's also not forget the consoles themselves, with the hardware needed to show all the stunning graphics the PS3 is going to cost $600!

    If the trend continues like this only the most hardcore of gamers are going to want to foot the bill, you can kiss casual gamers goodbye.

    We can only hope that as time goes on the advanced graphics and new technologies can become cheaper and easier to manufacture.
  • edited November 2006
    Serephel wrote: »
    The questions I pose to you fine Orange Beltians, then, is which is better? Graphics or innovation?

    Innovation. I don't care how nice the game looks if the game isn't any fun to play. Thank the gaming gods for the Nintendo Wii. Somebody has to tell the corporate jerkoffs that graphics aren't going to sell their games anymore.

    (and yes, I linked that right. I hated Metroid Prime)
  • edited November 2006
    Innovation 'fo sho!
  • edited November 2006
    innovation, I still play classic 8-bit games like Super Mario Bros. 3, N64 games like legend of Zelda OOT, gameboy games like original Pokemon, and many others
  • edited November 2006
    ur all nintendo fanboys lolololololol.

    No, but seriously, the graphics fad had better come to an end soon, or games are just going to continue to be the same crap. (i.e. GTA clone or EA sports game)
  • edited November 2006
    Or street racer.

    Also, like 90% of last year's games were in LA. Why? I'm so sick of LA, I practically know my way around it despite never having been there. Coming soon: Final Fantasy EleventyVIthousandM: LA Chronicles.
  • edited November 2006
    yes, sadly I don't play racing games all that much
  • edited November 2006
    Well just about any gamer will take innovation over graphics, for example, Katamari Damacy is awesome. The problem is that the latest Madden will outsell even the most creative of games. If a company puts out a well made, innovative game, there's still no guarantee that it'll sell, like Beyond Good and Evil, but EA can change just about nothing since it's last Madden and it'll still sell like hotcakes. Game companies are still businesses and they'll take the safe, profitable choice every time.

    As far as I can tell, the best way to solve this kinda thing is to only buy the games that support innovation and gameplay over graphics and gimmicks. So until this kinda thing happens en masse, let's all buy Spore.
  • edited November 2006
    I think this is an issue that, among this crowd (intelligent, creative, quirky people who value innovation over more-amazingly-rendered gore), will only get one response. And that's not even getting into the uncanny valley argument or anything.

    Next issue, please!
  • edited November 2006
    Which furthers my point. Unless you're name is Will Wright, you don't get to make creative games.
  • edited November 2006
    Yes, Serephel, if your name is Will Wright you get to make creative games. Or if it's Doug Church. Or Chris Delay. There are innovative developers out there. But if you're working for a big name company, you essentially have to establish yourself before they let you take risks. They're businesses, after all.

    Not saying that they're the best-run businesses... Bing Gordon (big-honcho at EA) once spoke to my school and told us, much to the amazement of the crowd, that {paraphrased} all you kids freshouttaschool want to make crazy new games, but the likelihood you'll do that is very small; in fact at EA, we DON'T WANT NEW GAMES, we just want add-ons to existing franchises. {/paraphrased}

    A research programmer friend of mine, wanting to get into games, asked Jeff Orkin (designer on No One Lives Forever and AI guy behind F.E.A.R.) for advice, and this is what he said.

    Perhaps because I've been hanging out with a lot of games-type-people, and have seen the Game Developer's Rant while volunteering at GDC*, these conversations just seem played out. No offense, but this is all preaching to the choir.

    * If you REALLY are interested in making games, may I highly recommend volunteering to be a CA (Conference Associate) at the Game Developer's Conference.
    http://www.gdconf.com/register/caregistration.htm
    Registration opens in November. I've done it the past two years, and I really wasn't that into games when I went the first year. All of the information is on the page...but you essentially get the equivalent of a $1700 Giga Pass to the conference in exchange for working something like 20 hours that week. Plus, you get the chance to talk to people like Will Wright or hang out with Steve Wozniak.

    ETA: To my knowledge, you don't have to be a student to do this, and although they generally do look for people over 18, they have had volunteers as young as 16 in the past. The CA program is phenomenally well-run, too, making it all the more fantastic an opportunity.

    Next issue, please!
  • edited November 2006
    Fine, here's a new bloody issue. People who try to tell us to stop talking about a subject that they don't have anything to say about regardless of whether or not their fellow forum members have anything more to say about it. These people need to learn that the topics don't revolve around them, and if they want to talk about something else, they should use the New Thread button. Discuss.
  • edited November 2006
    I think they should wait or use the new thread button no questions asked
  • edited November 2006
    Is that a subtle reference to someone or something? Cause I don't get it.
  • edited November 2006
    yes and no but enough of that let's wait for other posts
  • edited November 2006
    Takeru wrote:
    ur all nintendo fanboys lolololololol.

    Darn right.
    Serephel wrote:
    Is that a subtle reference to someone or something? Cause I don't get it.

    Seconded.
  • edited November 2006
    Serephel wrote: »
    Is that a subtle reference to someone or something? Cause I don't get it.

    I would think he was speaking to jason. Jason did express a strong desire to change the topic fairly quickly. His points were valid and the links were much appreciated (I do have something of an invested interest in the games industry, myself), but it is an interesting topic that many would perhaps have liked to express themselves on yet. As such this desire to move on so quickly came off as being a bit rude. A good solution may be to discuss that issue in a separate thread as, it is not necessarily an issue to be solved. That leaves us needing a more suitable topic for this thread.

    EDIT: I could be wrong in my interpretation though.
  • edited November 2006
    XoLore wrote: »
    I would think he was speaking to jason.

    Congratulations, you win the internet. :)
  • edited November 2006
    X, yes. My hope was for original topics. I was hoping to avoid cliches alltogether, but only specified political issues. I'll try to come up with something.....here's one. Why do people feel the need to half-motion, as if they are trying to move out of your way, even when they know there is not enough room, or when there is plenty of room and they didn't need to move at all? How can we stop these individuals?