-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusGAF 9 - F*** Off, We're Full (Of People With Different Ethnic Backgrounds)
- Thread starter Kritz
- Start date
Planet_JASE
Member
Thank you for taking the time to respond, rep. Hopefully this will answer most of your questions (well, the less rambly, shouty, weirdy parts of it, anyway).
Earlier on I had looked up recent studies on video games to see if there had been any new findings that either proved/disproved the belief that games negatively impacted the brain. The sad thing is that it still seems to be the case that violent video games do indeed have a negative effect on the brain. As people are forced to react aggressively in the playing word, so it affects their brain and causes them to have much more aggressive reactions when dealing with a real word situation.
The reason why this has a deeper effect than, say, just watching a movie is because a game makes you participate and become an active member of what is going on, it stimulates and engages parts of your brain that idly watching a movie doesn't. Whilst the research all shows short term effects only, that neither credits nor discredits any theory that this may have longer reaching effects. The fact is that most study in this field has been akin to the research that Fredric Wertham performed on the effect of comics of youths during the 1950s i.e. a little bit shaky. The field of study is also in it's infancy and with a lots of these, it takes a long time before the long term effects become measurable.
Thankfully there seem to be some universities that are taking the time to conduct proper, non-sensationalised research into the effects.
Anyway, here are a couple of links detailing recent research (released within the last 6 months, it seems): 1 and 2.
Geez people lighten up :<
EDIT: Oh he really WAS Choc? That explains why you're all mad at me but come on, look at those posts. It's not my fault he made it so easy.
EDIT 2: You were all in on this? Well Choc if you're going to try again make sure you let me know too...
Ashes tickets booked!
There's about 46 of us going together - mostly Brits, a few Trinidadians (the most cricket-mad of the group) with the Aussies a solid third place in national representation and then a bunch of other miscellaneous countries.
That's for the third day at the Gabba on the Saturday. Considering getting the Friday off and going with a smaller contingent.
-
Just finished Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't an entertaining experience, but damn, it just aint a game. In a pre-achievement world, there would be very little to compel the player to replay it.
There's about 46 of us going together - mostly Brits, a few Trinidadians (the most cricket-mad of the group) with the Aussies a solid third place in national representation and then a bunch of other miscellaneous countries.
That's for the third day at the Gabba on the Saturday. Considering getting the Friday off and going with a smaller contingent.
-
Just finished Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't an entertaining experience, but damn, it just aint a game. In a pre-achievement world, there would be very little to compel the player to replay it.
bodyboarder
Member
That's a big group. I might try and see if I can get a few mates to go with me, always wanted to go. Do tickets to the saturday ever sellout?
BananaArnie
Member
reptilescorpio
Member
Uni's have moved onto bad mouthing Mother Theresa now, god bless her angry soul, so don't expect many more half-arsed studies!
Also I would be pissed too if you made me play The Club for 20 minutes for possibly 3 days in a row. That is totally evidence of long term effect!
Also yes violent youth crime has not gone up.
This was fun! I'm off to arrow people in the face. Real life or virtual? That is up to you to decide!
Box of Bunnies
Banned
Choc wants you banned for playing internet detective lol
If any day is likely to sell out, it's the Saturday. Guaranteed day of play that no-one needs to ask the boss for day off for. We pre-booked.
-
I've already informed reptilescorpio via Bellygram, but I am now the proud owner of the complete Sleeping Dogs pack. Looks fun. The only seriously-toned sandbox game I've played was LA Noire, and that was just awful. I trust all the recommendations for the game from those who offered but I won't hit it up until I've blitzed through Tomb Raider.
-
Breaking Bad rewatchingness:
The first episode is indeed still fantastic. As an up to date viewer, it's impossible not to analyze the show and look for foreboding elements.
I think posting without spoilers for a 5 year old season is fine.
- Within minutes, Walt has the line 'Chemistry is about change'. Went right over my head the first time, but hot-damn if that doesn't sum up the show and his character.
- Right from the get go, if you watch closely, it's apparent that Walt needs Jesse. There's a scene where Walt demonstrates his genius by outlining how he wants to cook, and almost immediately Jesse stresses that they can't cook at home and need to hit the road. Yes, it's obvious the screenwriters wanted the audience to know about Jesse's street smarts, but in that scene are hints of Walt's stubbornness and pride. He immediately assumes he's Jesse's superior and as the show progresses, that pigheadedness leads to some incredibly rash decisions.
Top show. Should be ale to clear the whole lot before the final batch of episodes airs.
He didn't even bother disguising himself
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Thanks for the replies but you're both off a ways, please note I have no real party preference but a well run country and economy, I could care less about the actual party that delivers it.
You need to check your facts, the Howard govt. fully repayed the commonwealth debt, national deficit, left over Keating govt debts and more... Just do a quick word search of "debt" on that Wiki Link and behold what I would call a triumph of politics personally. Now we have labour back and they've only avoided the GFC due to Howard govt. financial success. Once again labour over spend and fuck up the economy plus create a deficit. I don't like our fine country owing money when clearly there are parties that can deliver books in the black and not in the red.
The other side of this political coin. I don't agree with selling of country assets to clear debt but something had to be done and now we're heading down the a debt path once again...ugh.
reptilescorpio
Member
LOL expected google.com, wikipedia.com is almost as funny though.
Wait, was it ever .com? Maybe it was always .org. I can't remember :/
Wait, was it ever .com? Maybe it was always .org. I can't remember :/
reptilescorpio
Member
Also is it Labour or Labor?
What Fred and Agyar are saying is that the Australian economy, bolstered by the resources boom, thrived independently of the reigning government. A lot of economists, even the ones that don't have time to read wikipedia, accept this.
There was even a thing in today's Liberal-leaning The Australian about how we didn't capitalise enough from the boom in the pre-GFC era and that Howard, Rudd and Gillard shouldn't have implemented tax cuts. Yes, The Australian newspaper said we should have taxed more.
endlessflood
Member
AusGAF has been a lot less interesting to read since he got banned, and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
Loved that review, EC is now the best mod on neogaf.
Can't go wrong with the Nexus 4.
Wait he really was Choc? I was just joking with that post!
FormallyMegadrive
Member
Jambo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tifmNDd0T90 Collateral devs talking about collateral. I forgot to ask you as well, did you play it at PAXAus?
Why does it need to serve a purpose?...
Also I don't want to seem like I'm ignoring the rest of your post. Most of it utterly destroyed my argument. I got a bit riled up and did take some of your posts too seriously. I often find I have a hard time articulating my thoughts and I go off on some tangent (the board members) instead.
I'll just not post any more, seems easier that way.
Planet_JASE
Member
I'm not usually one to push for items and products to contain a purpose; after all we're primarily here because of video games and I also have other pursuits that serve no function whatsoever. However, there becomes a point where you can not defend a product for being a harmless distractionary cultural sidebar. For example, there was some controversy a few years back regarding a game that was essentially a Stalking and Rape simulator. If the purpose of the game were to teach the player about the way in which rape effects the victims (or something similarly educational) then you can see the purpose of a product existing. If not, you are just left with a creepy game that serves no other purpose than to cater to the kinks of people who get off on such a thing. While these people may not necessarily rape in real life, indulging in the fantasy is most likely not healthy nor productive for them.
Once again, I consider myself very liberal; I enjoyed the previous Saints game (I did think the dildo was immature) and would say that I have a black sense of humour, finding humour where not many people would. I will stand up for art that is confronting and challenges societal beliefs. I will support the existence of art/literature that I find offensive if it contains worth to society as a whole and is not destructive. Having not played the game I will reserve my final judgement but doubt that an anal probe is in anything other than something that's meant to be edgy and funny, with no regard for what it stands for.
We all have our lines of what is unacceptable in art/books/movies/games, one of mine is sexual violence. For others it may be violence or language or religion and I'm cool with. I don't think that everyone that plays the game will go out and rape people but at the same time it doesn't have a message that will dissuade people from it, either. It just potentially serves to trivialise sexual assault, add a reward to it and make it fun enough that you'll want to do it over and over again. That makes me a little uncomfortable and call its existence in the game in question.
Lastly, the tone of your reply has concerned me slightly. At no point have I intended to offend you or upset you in any way. Much like Fred, I love a debate. To a certain extent, I started this discussion taking the opposite side just for the hell of it and to see if there were any compelling arguments for it being refused. As in turns out, there are factors with which I agree, maybe not to the extent of refusing classification but enough that I can understand why it was. I guess what I'm getting at is that I was not emotionally invested in this so if I came across as harsh that was not my intent at all. Likewise, I have not been offended by anything you've said, in fact I've enjoyed the discussion. I know I can be difficult to tell when I'm being facetious or serious, especially so via text (and especially when i change from joking to serious from post-to-post and sometimes sentance-to-sentance) so if that's caused you problems, I apologise. I'd rather that you not stop posting because of this.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Cheers. Though, for all I know, every other level in the game is balls.
So Jase I can see where you stand on the sexual violence thing (I think on the balance of things I'm with you) but what's your views on the weird strictness of not being able to use real life drugs with positive benefits in videogames that are already being restricted to 18+ individuals
lmao this post
dishwasherlove
Member
What's the obsession with a surplus anyway?
Howard was a big spender and a money waster. At least that's what the IMF says: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...e-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html . As Bern points out, he was extremely lucky to find himself Prime Minister* in boom times and could spend spend spend while the debt continued to fall. As the IMF study points out, debt has been falling since 1932. Debt reduction wasn't some Howard special. Conversely, we were extremely lucky to find ourselves led by Labor when the GFC hit, as they followed the stimulus recommendations to the letter, while other economies took the austerity path and fucked themselves as a result. See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-29/harcourt-blinded-to-one-of-australias-finest-moments/4849630 . That's not to say that a coalition government wouldn't necessarily have followed the advice too, but they are certainly more ideologically opposed to the idea of spending your way out of trouble. Who knows, but if you want an example of being "well run", that's a better example of it.
I think people like to see an easy to understand narrative that fits easily within their understanding. So saying this one guy made the country run well is much easier to grasp and understand, and of course the all of the political parties feed into these lies because it suits them. Tim Dunlop makes a good point in this article http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-25/dunlop-the-only-border-security-we-have-left/4843500 that asylum seekers have become such a big political issue because finally the government is able to act for the country instead of just reacting to global forces, which makes people feel insecure and uncomfortable. Now we have leaders acting definitively for the country and it makes us feel safe and warm. Or whatever. I dunno. Sounds plausible.
* I'm aware that due to a grammatical error, it appears that I'm saying Bernbaum was Prime Minister. I like the idea so much that I'm leaving the mistake in.
reptilescorpio
Member
Creepy is a strawman word. Stop using it people!
While I understand not having a lot of debt is a good thing, I don't see the point in driving to a surplus every time, sometimes it pays to spend money (e.g. what Fred mentioned about Labor and the GFC).
Of course we don't always want to have a budget in deficit as you can see where that will go. But on the other hand it's just used as constant ammunition from the opposition and drummed into peoples heads that debt is bad mkay.
Similar thing in Qld, the state got in a lot of debt (though nowhere near as dire as the media would have you believe), but living here, I am glad the state went into debt so it could fund half of the main roads projects the state was in desperate need of.
reptilescorpio
Member
President Bernbum would mean free XXXX and funny looking rocks for all! Woo! Stimulus package!
If they made a video game out of this, I would never sleep again.
reptilescorpio
Member
I bet Paradox has something in the works Fred.
But Bernbum loves the XXXX! I would probably subsidise Coopers Pale Ale, cheap yet awesome!
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
You don't like having savings? Yes I'm obsessed with having money in the bank for a rainy day and I'd prefer my country had money in the bank rather than owing money and being in debt.
Have you not seen Iceland, Pakistan, Greece or Japan or USA etc in recent times? The GFC hit them hard and already being prior in debt pushed them further into deficit. Some countries right over the breaking point too.
Australia's accounts are not like a persons savings accounts.
Countries arent like companies or households >_<
Countries are here hundreds from years from now, and need to spend stuff on things sometimes. Roads are an investment in the future, education, internets... etc...
Fact is, you have to spend money to make money. Government investment makes everything else possible. The problem is people see it all as profit/loss. So we sell off all our assets to the free market, problem is, they dont make roads and make trains run on time, they dont invest in power and water. They always come crawling back to government for help. Cause government has to take the decade long view to things, not the quarter to quarter view of most companies.
Hell, just look at telstra, what good did selling that off do us? Nothing, it just retarded the whole sector in Australia and the government has to come in to help, again. The few billion they got from teh sale of telstra amounts to nothing in the long run.
Countries are here hundreds from years from now, and need to spend stuff on things sometimes. Roads are an investment in the future, education, internets... etc...
Fact is, you have to spend money to make money. Government investment makes everything else possible. The problem is people see it all as profit/loss. So we sell off all our assets to the free market, problem is, they dont make roads and make trains run on time, they dont invest in power and water. They always come crawling back to government for help. Cause government has to take the decade long view to things, not the quarter to quarter view of most companies.
Hell, just look at telstra, what good did selling that off do us? Nothing, it just retarded the whole sector in Australia and the government has to come in to help, again. The few billion they got from teh sale of telstra amounts to nothing in the long run.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
For the purpose of ease of understanding the analogy fits well enough mate. Having a surplus and being in the black is closely related enough to having positive amounts in your savings. Good enough for the points to get across.
The economy is not a household budget and should not be treated as such. Things work very differently at that level. Have a read of this (thought it's US focused): http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/us-money-blog/2013/mar/26/federal-budget-household-finances-fed
Care to cite some articles explaining why these are debt related problems? In a lot of cases, cutting spending ("austerity measures") during the downturn is what made it worse. If the market is in a downturn, the government should pump money into it to get things running again, like what we did in this country. There are certain economists that believe the opposite, that government spending should be cut, so taxes can be cut, so big business can hire more people. The trouble is, business isn't going to hire more people in a downturn, especially if there is reduced demand for their services. In other words, you don't hire more people if there is no work for them to do. So in this case, it's better for the government to create some work and to spend some money. They should then wind back that spending when times are better.
I have a positive amount in my savings account, but also a mortgage. The analogy is still a terrible one.
Except they are the opposite... when times are good you can spend more freely, whereas government should cut back. When times are tough, you cut back on expenses, which is when government should start spending more freely >.<
A surplus doesnt matter now cause the global economy is still in the shitter largely. The US is about to have another debt ceiling fight, the EU is still going in circles, and China is having their own problems with banks now >.>
There is a reason all economists dont think that a surplus now is the sensible approach, its only the 'political' approach.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Not really. It does get the point accross, but that point is wrong. So the analogy is not really very good. Government spending is nothing like private spending.
Look at the list of countries with a surplus over the last few years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_budgets_by_country
Plenty of shit economies and countries run a surplus. Plenty of well run countries run a deficit.
reptilescorpio
Member
Narrative. Narrative never changes.
If only we were smart like Norway and taxed the shit out of our resources boom.
Damn that pissed me off when even the late and small tax that was proposed by Labor was shot down.