DC- Match 4 (Remixor & Ben VS Netgraph/Esseb)

[Andail]

Sorry for the delay, something came up today.
Anyway, here's a controversial topic for you:

These boards would gain from a 18-years old age limit

Would they? Netgraph and Esseb thinks so.
Remixor and Ben don't, and they get the first post.

[remixor]

One of the most remarkable things about the internet is its ability to bring together people who would otherwise never even associate with each other, due to the net's global reach and degree of anonymity.  Just as people from countless cultures can interact and share experiences, so can those of wildly varying ages.  In an age like today's, when the younger generation has been raised with the internet, that younger demographic has a large presence and an important role within many online communities.  The AGS boards are no exception.  A minimum age requirement of 18 on these forums could only have a detrimental effect.

Certainly, one may say that a member is more likely to be immature or annoying if they are a young child posting completely anonymously.  There is an element of truth to this.  However, as we all know, such trolls rarely have the attention span to remain around, posting their useless messages.  In fact, the ones that do have a longer shelf life tend to provide entertainment during their stay, and humourous memories after they leave.  Surely this has happened on this board.  And let's face it--actually using AGS, while not requiring a computer science degree, takes some dedication and willingness to learn.  Most people who come to these boards do so first out of a desire to use AGS.  Those with tiny attention spans, the ones who would be spamming the forums, rarely will stay around long enough to be anything else but funny to the regulars before they get bored and move on.

Putting aside those groups of immature guests, as ultimately harmless as they generally are, we come to the most important reason not to institute an 18-year-old minimum limit.  What about all of AGS' pre-18 members, many of whom have made incredibly significant contributions to the community?  Unfortunately, I have not been here long enough to know the ages of too many of the AGS forums' members, but here are some examples of some who would be turned away were this limit to be applied, in no particular order:
AGA, custard, Archangel, Thunderstorm, LGM, eggie, Tier, Flippy_D, Shattered Sponge, Rincewind, Barcik, Trapezoid, Quickstrike.  (apologies if I somehow made a mistake; let me know by PM)
Would you honestly say this community would be better off without the efforts of those listed?  And what about all the regular members--and I am certain there are plenty--who are 18 now, but were not when they first joined?  There is no reason to assume that they would have simply waited around until the relevant birthday; no, they would have most likely been turned off to the whole thing or simply forgotten.

And how would such a limit be implemented now?  There are many, many members who simply do not specify their age in their profiles.  Many others would simply use a false age or register a new name to avoid being banned.  We all know how easy it would be to simply choose not to divulge information in the internet.  It would be very difficult to come up with a reliable system that would actually be able to distinguish those who are not yet 18.

But even if such a system was realistic and possible, why now?  I assume the question of debate is not whether AGS forums should have had a limit imposed from the beginning, but rather that one should be put into place now.  It would devastate the community to simply alienate a large percentage of its members with a single stroke.  More games would go unfinished, feedback would greatly diminish, and the community would suffer.

If the question is whether these boards should have had a limit when they began, which seems unlikely, then that too would be a poor proposition.  AGS is a game-creation engine.  On the whole, the younger generation is quite simply more of a gaming generation.   Granted, the average age of an adventure gamer is likely older than that of an action gamer, because of the predominance of action games in today's market.  However, many current teens grew up with the old LucasArts and Sierra adventures from a very young age, as did I, and to be able to create their own games in those styles is quite a temptation.

Not only would a minimum 18-year old age limit on these board be a pointless and insignificant stroke, but it would also have many decidedly negative effects.

Over to you.

[Esseb]

Like you, I'm assuming an age restriction would be feasible for the sake of the debate.

"[the] younger demographic has a large presence and an important role within many online communities."

From the ags website's faq:

Q: What's the average age of people in the AGS community?
A: A survey on the messageboard a while back showed that most people who use AGS are in the 16-25 age group, although of course there are people of all ages there; the community has had members as young as 11 and as old as 66.

What younger demographic? Average age of 16 to 25, and this survey is about two years old as well.

Most fans of adventure games were introduced to it by the classic games from Sierra and LucasArts, and that age group is now mostly 18 years or above. This particular community, being based around an adventure game authoring system, simply does not need the influences from a younger demographic because all the good adventures, and thus it's fans, are old.




"Would you honestly say this community would be better off without the efforts of those listed?"

I'm not attacking any individuals here, but what noteworthy games have they released? Alien Rape Escape and Satan Quest. 2 games, out of 13 people. The forum exists because of ags, and should revolve around it. It seems to me most of these kids would be just as well off on any other forums available on the Internet.




You say an immature member will inevetiably leave after a while, and thus does not pose a big problem. I can agree with that to a certain extent, but it's the sheer number of those members which at times make the forums intollerable. I'm sure most have witnessed a burst of immature members if they've read the forums for more than a month. At times you can't read a single thread without someone acting like a preschooler in it. It is hard to  maintain a serious level of discussion in a thread if you are interrupted with posts such as "ü suck and ür mother". Also, While the people making such posts may leave after a while, their posts are seen for weeks, even months after they're gone in threads with long lifespans. So in a way they're never gone. This is how forums work, there is no time passing. A person is only present in a forum if his posts are. He never truly "leaves".

In general these posts, while few compared to the total amount of posts, degrade the forum. When you're in a new place, it's only wise to act like the people there. But what does those posts make the people here seem like they act like?




"It would devastate the community to simply alienate a large percentage of its members with a single stroke."

At first sure, but I think it would only benefit from it in the long run. It'll be a fresh start in a way. With less members, more mature members, the quality of the games released would rise. Look at some of the best ags games made. Pleurghburg, Rodekill, Robert Redford, Book of Times, Larry Vales, Night of the Hermit. All of them made by people older than 18 years.

Certainly, a few quality games would then never get made by those unlucky enough to be younger than 18 years of age, but if it also means the end of release of hundreds of unfinished game tests mostly exclusively made by kids, I think the good effects outweighs the bad.

Also, if, like you say, a large percentage of the members would be gone as a result, then all the better. The forum has 53502 total posts and 917 members. The larger a community is the less of a community it becomes. I know this may seem like a cheap point, but having been a member of the forum for two years in three weeks, I can honestly say that it was better before with less members. If we loose, say, 60% of the members, and the remaining members are all 18 years and above, it'll only be good for the community.




- - - - -
Note to future acquaintances who found this post from a search engine or similar: This post was made for a debate competition. I may not agree with any or all of the points I make above.

[remixor]

Most fans of adventure games were introduced to it by the classic games from Sierra and LucasArts, and that age group is now mostly 18 years or above. This particular community, being based around an adventure game authoring system, simply does not need the influences from a younger demographic because all the good adventures, and thus it's fans, are old.

Your point is flawed for a few main reasons.  First of all, you are applying an average, and applying it on an absolute level.  You say "all the good adventures, and thus it's fans, are old."  This is not a correct assumption based on the results of that survey.  Also, the last statement of that answer is not be ignored: "the community has had members as young as 11..."

Furthermore, your point is no reason to EXCLUDE younger users, it is simply that on average they are not there.  Obviously, this is untrue, as you acknowledge these younger users later in your argument, even if you do not support their work.

Additionally, that survey having been taken two years ago is by no means a guarantee that if it were to be taken today, all the ages would simply shift up by two years.  New gamers, gamers who never experienced classic adventures when they were first release because they were too young, discover the genre every day.  Reading both this forum and the Adventure Gamers forum has made that very apparent to me.

I'm not attacking any individuals here, but what noteworthy games have they released? Alien Rape Escape and Satan Quest. 2 games, out of 13 people. The forum exists because of ags, and should revolve around it. It seems to me most of these kids would be just as well off on any other forums available on the Internet.

As many, including CJ, have mentioned, the AGS community/forums do not solely revolve around those who create the most or the best games.  He has voiced that one of the things that makes this community great is that there are people who do all sorts of things: people who program, people who manage projects, people who design graphics, people who help others with problems, and, yes, even people who simply occupy the forums and the IRC channel and contribute to discussions.  As far as younger users not releasing "noteworthy" games--well, who is to decide what games deserve to be called noteworthy?  As the regular members of the community often iterate, it is wise to start small, learn the engine well, and move on to bigger things.  Many of the users I listed have released many smaller games which help them gain familiarity with AGS--and how can more competent AGS users be a bad thing?  As far as older users go, there are many older and younger users on this forum who have never released a single game, but many of them have proven invaluable in other areas.  Obviously, the number of noteworthy games released is not an accurate measure of worth here.

While the people making such posts may leave after a while, their posts are seen for weeks, even months after they're gone in threads with long lifespans. So in a way they're never gone. This is how forums work, there is no time passing. A person is only present in a forum if his posts are. He never truly "leaves".

In general, however, this does not actually degrade the overall quality of the forums.  I have seen many an internet forum, and this one has, on the whole, a much lower ratio of immature spammers and trolls than most others.  As I said earlier, the relative effort it takes to gain any sort of understanding of AGS deters many from staying around too long.  Compared to the amount of idiots who post on your average internet forum and are actually considered regulars, AGS has a pretty impressive roster overall.

In general these posts, while few compared to the total amount of posts, degrade the forum. When you're in a new place, it's only wise to act like the people there. But what does those posts make the people here seem like they act like?

I'm not sure I fully understand your point.  I think what you're saying is "What if new people come to the forum and see the stupid messages and think that's what everybody is like?"  In response, I would say to simply look at most threads on these forums.  You will find the occassional worthless post, but it's pretty obvious in general that such behavior isn't tolerated for long.  There are plenty of regulars here who have no qualms with speaking their mind to users they feel are out of hand, and when confronted in such a way, most unwelcome guests will usually just leave.  However, you are right to say that there are those who don't; there are certainly a few infamous names in AGS forum lore.  However, I maintain the position that the amount of humour and running jokes those people inspire makes up for any actual harm they cause.

At first sure, but I think it would only benefit from it in the long run. It'll be a fresh start in a way. With less members, more mature members, the quality of the games released would rise. Look at some of the best ags games made. Pleurghburg, Rodekill, Robert Redford, Book of Times, Larry Vales, Night of the Hermit. All of them made by people older than 18 years.

But as the size of a community dwindles, there is less motivation for such iconic AGS game makers to continue their craft.  There are many reasons AGS is such a popular engine in comparison to most of the other adventure studios out there, but one of the most notable ones is the huge community it fosters.  A large community is simply more encouraging to those who want to create a game.  After all, the more people that play the games, the better.  And if a younger user's only function is to play games that other people make, so be it.  He should be welcome just the same.  After all, he is the reason games are made at all.

Certainly, a few quality games would then never get made by those unlucky enough to be younger than 18 years of age, but if it also means the end of release of hundreds of unfinished game tests mostly exclusively made by kids, I think the good effects outweighs the bad.

Certainly, those under 18 are by no means the only makers of test games.  Beyond that, there is no real problem with them.  Since individual users must provide their own web space to upload their games, they do not tax the servers and can be easily ignored if one gets tired of them or is just not interested.

Also, if, like you say, a large percentage of the members would be gone as a result, then all the better. The forum has 53502 total posts and 917 members. The larger a community is the less of a community it becomes. I know this may seem like a cheap point, but having been a member of the forum for two years in three weeks, I can honestly say that it was better before with less members. If we loose, say, 60% of the members, and the remaining members are all 18 years and above, it'll only be good for the community.

That is a common rallying cry of old-timers on forums, that things were always better in the old days.  While I am not here to support or discredit that sentiment, as it has its own merits and problems, age is not the problem.  Many of the users who have been here for a long time would be kicked out, and many new users would not.  And finally, your implication that those under 18 comprise 60% of the community conflicts strongly with the main thrust of many of your earlier statements.  And if that is the case, I maintain that such a huge loss of members will be an enormous detriment to a community that thrives on feedback, ideas, teamwork, and an audience.

[n3tgraph]

(sorry for any upcoming bad english)

I'm not sure I fully understand your point.  I think what you're saying is "What if new people come to the forum and see the stupid messages and think that's what everybody is like?"  In response, I would say to simply look at most threads on these forums.  You will find the occassional worthless post, but it's pretty obvious in general that such behavior isn't tolerated for long.  There are plenty of regulars here who have no qualms with speaking their mind to users they feel are out of hand, and when confronted in such a way, most unwelcome guests will usually just leave.  However, you are right to say that there are those who don't; there are certainly a few infamous names in AGS forum lore.  However, I maintain the position that the amount of humour and running jokes those people inspire makes up for any actual harm they cause.

Esseb means that new members always post silly posts and they remain for a long time in a forum. This can be very disturbing imo. I have seen it so many times and I might have done it myself too when I was younger. On forums the new young members see the big ones of a forum. They try to be funny, be noticed, and be liked. They want to be even more popular than the most respected forum members so they post all kind of crap where it shouldn't be. In some cases the new members post something in EVERY recent thread just to be noticed. Mostly this will work irritating to the older members. I'm not saying every new young member will do this but a lot will and that is a very annoying fact.

Ofcourse the good always suffer from the bad. But that's just a fact in life and that will allways remain. Too bad if some good younger members will be removed because the limit will be set, the forums in general would improve a lot.

In general, however, this does not actually degrade the overall quality of the forums.  I have seen many an internet forum, and this one has, on the whole, a much lower ratio of immature spammers and trolls than most others.  As I said earlier, the relative effort it takes to gain any sort of understanding of AGS deters many from staying around too long.  Compared to the amount of idiots who post on your average internet forum and are actually considered regulars, AGS has a pretty impressive roster overall

Imagine how it would be if the 18- members would be removed - the ratio would even be lower than it is now.

That is a common rallying cry of old-timers on forums, that things were always better in the old days.  While I am not here to support or discredit that sentiment, as it has its own merits and problems, age is not the problem.  Many of the users who have been here for a long time would be kicked out, and many new users would not.  And finally, your implication that those under 18 comprise 60% of the community conflicts strongly with the main thrust of many of your earlier statements.  And if that is the case, I maintain that such a huge loss of members will be an enormous detriment to a community that thrives on feedback, ideas, teamwork, and an audience.

I think Esseb just took an example not to be taken too literaly - correct me if I'm wrong. If only 18+ members would be allowed the feedback, ideas and teamwork would improve a lot imo because a lot of immature members give feedback like this:

w0w th4t IS a GrEat B4ckground!1!

well what kind of feedback is that actually? You can't find anything usefull in it, ofcourse it's nice to hear compliments, but the immature member will only post this to be liked not to be of any help. It's even questionable if that member is interested in the maker's art. Mature members give feedback with which you can improve your backgrounds or your music etc.

But as the size of a community dwindles, there is less motivation for such iconic AGS game makers to continue their craft.  There are many reasons AGS is such a popular engine in comparison to most of the other adventure studios out there, but one of the most notable ones is the huge community it fosters.  A large community is simply more encouraging to those who want to create a game.  After all, the more people that play the games, the better.  And if a younger user's only function is to play games that other people make, so be it.  He should be welcome just the same.  After all, he is the reason games are made at all.

That is questionable. When AGS is a large community of -18 members I don't know if that is an encouraging fact. The new members which are 18+ will think that this forum is run by a bunch of kids which can't be of any help in any way. The potential new member will be unattracted and will probably leave if he sees some of thees 1337 h4x0r posts. If I had to choose between a large immature community or a bit smaller mature community, my choice would be as clear as water.

[Esseb]

A large community is simply more encouraging to those who want to create a game.  After all, the more people that play the games, the better.  And if a younger user's only function is to play games that other people make, so be it.  He should be welcome just the same.  After all, he is the reason games are made at all.

http://www.adventuregamers.com/forums/index.php
http://www.fourfatchicks.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat=
http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=187
http://www.ngongo-b.net/index.php?PID=15
http://www.justadventure.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi

We're not making games for the ags community alone. There are many forums adventure gamers visit, and if you want people to play your game, release it there.

[remixor]

Esseb means that new members always post silly posts and they remain for a long time in a forum. This can be very disturbing imo. I have seen it so many times and I might have done it myself too when I was younger. On forums the new young members see the big ones of a forum. They try to be funny, be noticed, and be liked. They want to be even more popular than the most respected forum members so they post all kind of crap where it shouldn't be. In some cases the new members post something in EVERY recent thread just to be noticed. Mostly this will work irritating to the older members. I'm not saying every new young member will do this but a lot will and that is a very annoying fact.

That's as may be.  However, what we seem to be discussing here is a maturity issue, not an age issue, which are not as related as they may seem.  The age division between maturity and immaturity is a very blurry one, and a rather arbitrary lower age limit such as "18" is by no means necessarily one that reflects an effective judgment of where that division occurs.  As far as I can tell, that particular age was only chosen because of general convention in many countries specifying when a person is no longer a "minor."  There is no reason why such a specific guideline should be applied to the AGS forums.  To continue with the point of maturity versus age, who is to say that any would-be troll will gain so much courtesy and restraint on their eighteenth birthday that they are somehow fit for AGS posting?  To take another angle, why would we assume that the average person under eighteen is somehow unfit?  Are seventeen year olds really that bad, but eighteen year olds are not?  Again, the eighteen year limit is an arbitrary and insulting one, with no true basis in any solid proof that the amount of desirable posters the board would LOSE from the limit would be worth the amount of undesirable ones we would block.
To use a metaphor, let's look at speed limits.  We like the the speed limit to be higher, because we prefer to drive faster, which allows us to be more efficient and get to our destination sooner.  Now, if we universally lower speed limits, of course we will have fewer accidents.  You could bring the speed limit down to 20mph on highways, and you would have hardly any accidents, and things would maybe run more smoothly overall, but, to be honest, I think that most would say that nobody would particularly like it in the end.  I'm not going to pretend that this is a perfect analogy bit for bit, but the principle is the same.  Like assigning a ridiculous speed limit, you could assign an unnecessarily high lower age limit; you'd probably have fewer bad posts just as you'd have fewer accidents, but in the end it's just not worth it.  Again, this is not intended as a direct and perfect comparison, but I think it illustrates the point.

Imagine how it would be if the 18- members would be removed - the ratio would even be lower than it is now.

Again, not necessarily.  For this to be true, you'd have to be certain that 18 is indeed the "magic number" where on average maturity is gained.  A ratio is not the same as an absolute count, so depending on what percentage of the existing below-18 demographic we have here are good posters, it could go either way.  In fact, I would strongly argue that we have considerably more considerate and useful posters below 18 years of age than we do ignorant and annoying ones, which is made even more relevent by taking into account on average how much longer the good ones stay.  To contend that we would stand to gain more than we lose from the proposed policy would be to greatly undervalue the worth of good posters, which is the very group you are trying to maintain.

That is questionable. When AGS is a large community of -18 members I don't know if that is an encouraging fact. The new members which are 18+ will think that this forum is run by a bunch of kids which can't be of any help in any way. The potential new member will be unattracted and will probably leave if he sees some of thees 1337 h4x0r posts. If I had to choose between a large immature community or a bit smaller mature community, my choice would be as clear as water.

Here, I again refer to my previous points made about the general quality of forum posts and the unlikeliness of new members (especially since you seem to be indicating new rational and mature members) to seriously confuse the two extremes.  I'm not going to repeat myself, but I will add as one minor example the existence of the "Moderator" indicator under moderators' avatars, indicating who is indeed "running the forum."

We're not making games for the ags community alone. There are many forums adventure gamers visit, and if you want people to play your game, release it there.

While this argument has some validity, it is unfortunately rather unrealistic.  On other adventure forums where amateur games are discussed (and such discussions are fairly few and far between), the games that get the most notice are games such as Out of Order, which is not AGS-developed, and the Tierra offerings, which are are polished to about as a possibly high a technical standard as the technology allows, which is a rare case in AGS games.  I still contend that the AGS community is quite self-contained.  The average adventure gamer will still whole-heartedly embrace the low-res adventure of old, but mainly because they are classic adventures.  While there are certainly plenty of exceptions, such gamers still expect new games to look quite good, and it is often difficult for AGS and other amateur adventure games to meet these expectations.  The AGS forums are by far the best place to promote games, and simply assuming that even the good ones can just be accepted at any other adventure forum to make up for an arbitrary age limit is just not realistic.

[n3tgraph]

The age division between maturity and immaturity is a very blurry one, and a rather arbitrary lower age limit such as "18" is by no means necessarily one that reflects an effective judgment of where that division occurs.  As far as I can tell, that particular age was only chosen because of general convention in many countries specifying when a person is no longer a "minor."

There are always borders you can't deny, you can drive a car (in Holland) when you are 18, you may drive a fast motorbike when your 21. There are age-boundries. As blurry as they may be, it is a solution. I could say a 16 year old one in Holland can drive a car like no-one else, but he can't because he aint 18 yet. And that is fair! Because when all 16 year olds in Holland are allowed to drive a car, a lot more accidents would occur - therefore it is a solution!

Ofcourse you can say a 16 year old can behave like 19 year old one, but who is going to judge them piece by piece? That's not reasonable! When setting the age limit, you have a fair solution.

To use a metaphor, let's look at speed limits.  We like the the speed limit to be higher, because we prefer to drive faster, which allows us to be more efficient and get to our destination sooner.  Now, if we universally lower speed limits, of course we will have fewer accidents.  You could bring the speed limit down to 20mph on highways, and you would have hardly any accidents, and things would maybe run more smoothly overall, but, to be honest, I think that most would say that nobody would particularly like it in the end.  I'm not going to pretend that this is a perfect analogy bit for bit, but the principle is the same.  Like assigning a ridiculous speed limit, you could assign an unnecessarily high lower age limit; you'd probably have fewer bad posts just as you'd have fewer accidents, but in the end it's just not worth it.  Again, this is not intended as a direct and perfect comparison, but I think it illustrates the point.

This comparison gives a nice turn ofcourse, but as you said yourself it is not a good example. It would be the same for me to give a comparison like this:
The age limit on cathouses can be lowered to 15 years old, the cathouses would have a lot more customers! But would it be good for this world? I don't think so....

age versus maturity(is that word correct?) is not measurable because it differs from person to person, but just like driving a car, setting an age limit is a 90% good solution, because 90% of the irritation will be removed.

[Esseb]

While this argument has some validity, it is unfortunately rather unrealistic.  On other adventure forums where amateur games are discussed (and such discussions are fairly few and far between), the games that get the most notice are games such as Out of Order, which is not AGS-developed, and the Tierra offerings, which are are polished to about as a possibly high a technical standard as the technology allows, which is a rare case in AGS games.  

Which is bad. AGS needs more good, long polished games. Take a look at the ags games page, full length games: http://www.agsforums.com/games.php?category=1. 15 out of those 18 games were made by persons 18 year old or above at the time (Lucasfan and the guy who made the qfg parody may be, their profiles don't say). Even if we would loose many of the games in the short or medium category, those 15, which define AGS, would remain. I don't think that's so bad. Unlike you, I don't like the idea of releasing a game to the ags community alone. The only reason we like short efforts is because we know the effort involved. Like you claim, they don't become known outside our forum. I believe that's because they don't know the effort involved and simply judge the game for what it is, a game. So if a short 4 room game doesn't become known outside this community, well, maybe it shouldn't have been released. So, an 18 year old age limit would certainly drop the number of games released significantly, but I argue that most of those we would lose deserve to.




- - - - -
Note to future acquaintances who found this post from a search engine or similar: This post was made for a debate competition. I may not agree with any or all of the points I make above.

[remixor]

url=http://www.agsforums.com/games.php?category=1]http://www.agsforums.com/games.php?category=1[/url]. 15 out of those 18 games were made by persons 18 year old or above at the time (Lucasfan and the guy who made the qfg parody may be, their profiles don't say). Even if we would loose many of the games in the short or medium category, those 15, which define AGS, would remain. I don't think that's so bad. Unlike you, I don't like the idea of releasing a game to the ags community alone. The only reason we like short efforts is because we know the effort involved. Like you claim, they don't become known outside our forum. I believe that's because they don't know the effort involved and simply judge the game for what it is, a game. So if a short 4 room game doesn't become known outside this community, well, maybe it shouldn't have been released. So, an 18 year old age limit would certainly drop the number of games released significantly, but I argue that most of those we would lose deserve to.

However, this point again grows off-topic.  You are not arguing that there will be a categorically and quantifiable positive gain from the age limit.  You are saying that we "won't lose much" from it.  I take issue with that as well however, for reasons I have stated before.  Making games is only one aspect of the community; it takes all sorts.

There are always borders you can't deny, you can drive a car (in Holland) when you are 18, you may drive a fast motorbike when your 21. There are age-boundries. As blurry as they may be, it is a solution. I could say a 16 year old one in Holland can drive a car like no-one else, but he can't because he aint 18 yet. And that is fair! Because when all 16 year olds in Holland are allowed to drive a car, a lot more accidents would occur - therefore it is a solution!

And so we are to assign a similar age to operating a dangerous and multi-ton piece of machinery with posting messages on an internet forum?  In the States you can drive a car at 16 or a motorcycle at 15, and yet somehow the average person would not be qualified to visit the AGS forums until two or three years later?

[n3tgraph]

that's totally not what my point was about.... It was just an example to make my state a bit clearer. Making a game and driving a car isn't the same ball part.

it's just like comparing driving a car and drinking beer - but as an example to give some strength to your work it can be usefull, not to be taken literally.