Messages

Very much.

I support this project with 100% of my heart.

All you need to know is that it's MAGIC!

DG [Dee-Jee] n. - 1.) A contemptible person with less fiber to his morals than the amount of fiber found in the average Gummi Bear (TM)
- 2.) A person exhibiting the same characteristics as a DG.

Fuck off. I got more moral fibre than most people. I'm no Pope but I've never drowned children and puppies either.

more people than just you do it, DG

Well duh! I'm just the one who gets blamed for it.

There are *a few* members on the forums who like to create hype by arguing with alternate personalities.

When have I ever argued with an alternate personality to create hype for a game??

In fact, when in the past has anyone tried this?

Who are these *few* members you speak of?

All I'm guilty of is creating a popular "joke" character (and a few minor ones) on this forum, something I gave up two or three years ago because it's a pain in the arse to go through the registration process.

It's got nothing to do with "creating hype", rather it's just an in-forum joke that I happen to be everyone new who registers here.

And then Pamela woke up and saw that Maude's death was just a dream...

"What's Family Guy?" asked Maude.

Remember?

It's ok everyone! I ran some tests on that post and the moderators met for an emergency meeting at the secret volcano base and we've come to the conclusion that RocketGirl was joking.

The same thing happened to the Superfriends when the Riddler sent them one of his dastardly riddles.

"Ho, ho, ho, " laughed Batman, "Obviously a joke, just like the kind you get out of Christmas crackers."

Next thing you know, Gothom's First National Bank was cleaned dry. The Legion of Doom later bought an island in the Bahamas where they received daily hot oil rubdowns from the Swedish bikini team.

Also... "Solomon Grundy drink coconut juice."

Or you could just not egg the living andhashdollarpercent out of it and stay law-abiding while she goes to jail.

Where's the fun in that?

You make a convincing argument.

I'll going to

?

Kind of ironic when...

If we were together in the dessert, would you give me the bottle of water?

Only if it were a tiramisu, then you can have my water.

In conclusion, everyone doesn't know how to spell or use grammar on the internet.

Also...

You have in front of you Williams. He is tied and you have the lethal injection on your hand. Would you kill him? And if yes, would you feel any guilt for killing him? Think about that.

Okay... I'm thinking...

...

.......

...........

Okay, done! To answer the first question, "No."

And that means I don't have to answer the second question.

CASE CLOSED!

Just a quick add-in: you're not considering the context here. They're not just any old kids books. They're kids books with a strong anti-violence message. Don't you think they have some benefit on society?

No, you misunderstand. I was trying to say it's a bit of a pointless argument to say "his feeling sorry for the victims won't bring them back". Of course it won't. Neither will anything else.

Hmm, maybe this might sound better coming from Morgan Freeman. He has a softer, gentler voice than I do.

Take it away, Morgan!



"There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret. Not because I'm in here, or because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then, a young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I want to talk to him. I want to try and talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone and this old man is all that's left. I got to live with that. Rehabilitated? It's just a bullshit word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a shit."

I'll leave it at that for the moment. I have to go do some work.

Punishing him won't bring back the dead either. So, why'd you bring that up?

I agree. Bear the consequences. And I also think that "intent" is a key issue here, as I said previously. However, I still think you can have the intention to do something bad and later call it a mistake after you realise the negative impact of such actions.

As the cliche goes: To err is human, to forgive devine.

I think someone can be a misguided individual to go out and kill someone. That consistutes a mistake.

Wow.Ã,  I mean, wow.Ã,  We all make mistakes, right?Ã,  Like...Murder?Ã,  That's got to be the single most inane argument against the death penalty I've EVER had the misfortune of reading.

Then you better not read Capote's "In Cold Blood". Hey, wow! He wrote a whole book considered a masterpiece on something you consider inane! Bloody hell and fuck me in the eye hole! Ain't that a piss in the pants?

Jesus, you're treating this like if someone commits a murder, they lose their humanity forever and can never get it back. Murderers are still human beings. If anything, people murder because they are misguided human beings. Murder has been a misguided part of human culture for many, many centuries. So, don't act so shocked at the things I say.

I don't validate William's crimes. I think he should have spent a long time in prison. But I don't think anyone can justify the death penalty for him on the simple basis that he was a murderer and that's that. Who are we to judge? We're not perfect.

So a carjacker can be "young, stupid, drunk, under drugs, anything" and call it a mistake but a murder can't?

That's a little hypocritical.

I mean your whole basis for this seems to be "murder can't be considered a mistake because it's murder", which is a pretty superficial argument.

I think someone can say, "That was an error. I regret it. I am sorry. I was young and stupid," for crimes they commit, be it carjacking, murder, or stealing pies from open windows.

[intent]

"Hasn't anyone else here made a mistake? Haven't we all tried to make amends at one stage? Is everyone infallible but Williams?"

yes I have made mistakes... but they didn't involve the death of anyone.

That's not the point. Hell, a guy could get drunk, drive a car and kill a child, but that doesn't mean he had the intent to kill someone.

So let's talk about intent.

Forget murder for a second. Have you ever been purposely spiteful only to regret such later?

You see, we as human beings are often blind while under rage. It's only after we learn from our mistakes that we achieve clarity.

I may not have murdered anyone in my life, but I have done some very mean things before. Things I've regreted and apologised for. And I have learned from such in order to understand myself better.

Williams made a bigger mistake than probably any of us have. I'm sure he learned from it. But if you forever condemn him, you might as well forever condemn ever other person on the planet who was once spiteful but has learnt from their actions.

"I once was blind, but now I see."

DG: A silly mistake is not a murder! come on! It is not the same!

If someone commits a murder then regrets it and other say that such is not a mistake, then what the fuck is it??

Also, see my comments above.

You don't believe in redemption, then?

No.. eye for an eye , tooth for a tooth.
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Hope he burns in hell.

You do know there's a New Testament where Jesus says "What you do to the least of my brothers, that you do to me." (Matt. 25:40)

Right?

Few things to say about Stanley Williams: he was sent to jail in 1981 and for over a decade was involved in many fights with other prisoners as well as some escape attempts. After he got out of solitary in 1993, we started his anti-violence crusade. So, for a start, it wasn't just an overnight transformatin after his conviction to start writing anti-violence books with the glimmer of a hope they'd release him for becoming a good guy.

He even posted an apology on his website in 1997 that said the following:

Twenty-five years ago when I created the Crips youth gang with Raymond Lee Washington in South Central Los Angeles, I never imagined Crips membership would one day spread throughout California, would spread to much of the rest of the nation and to cities in South Africa, where Crips copycat gangs have formed. I also didn't expect the Crips to end up ruining the lives of so many young people, especially young black men who have hurt other young black men. Raymond was murdered in 1979. But if he were here, I believe he would be as troubled as I am by the Crips legacy.

So today I apologize to you all -- the children of America and South Africa -- who must cope every day with dangerous street gangs. I no longer participate in the so-called gangster lifestyle, and I deeply regret that I ever did.

As a contribution to the struggle to end child-on-child brutality and black-on-black brutality, I have written the Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence children's book series. My goal is to reach as many young minds as possible to warn you about the perils of a gang lifestyle.

I am no longer "dys-educated" (disease educated). I am no longer part of the problem. Thanks to the Almighty, I am no longer sleepwalking through life.

I pray that one day my apology will be accepted. I also pray that your suffering, caused by gang violence, will soon come to an end as more gang members wake up and stop hurting themselves and others.

I vow to spend the rest of my life working toward solutions.

Amani (Peace),

Stanley "Tookie" Williams, Surviving Crips Co-Founder, April 13, 1997

Let me ask, has anyone here ever made a mistake? You know, something really stupid that you look back in, say, a year or two and think, "That was fucking stupid... I am really, really sorry."

I know I have.

Forget this eye for an eye bullshit. We can rise above petty vengence.

I don't know much about Williams. I haven't read his books and I only know what I read about him website and in newspapers. I am against the death penalty. I think what Williams did was wrong. But he made a mistake that he admits to. And he tried to make amends.

Hasn't anyone else here made a mistake? Haven't we all tried to make amends at one stage? Is everyone infallible but Williams?

Of course not.

So I think people here should quit their "eye for an eye" petty vengence shit.

Is the government's killing of Williams really any different than him killing his victims?

Yes it is. Quite different.

He was put to death, by the government, for crimes he committed.

His victims were put to death because a psychotic thug (who was a piece of shit and didn't deserve to draw breath anyway) decided he would show just how tough he was by killing innocent people.

But he wrote some books!?!?! He was redeemed!!?!?

Hey do you remember that war in Iraq the US federal government started and haven't quite finished yet but has resulted in several thousand casualties and yet the government has not apologised for starting what several ex-White House staffers call "a mistake"?

Yeah, that war.

My point is this: I wouldn't hold any government up as some infallible entity, especially since governments and politicans rarely apologise for their mistakes.Ã,  At least Willaims apologised for his. I give him credit for that.

Warren Spector, sure! Peter Molyneux, yup! Jeff Minter? He of hover bover and llamatron? Right? I HATED THOSE GAMES!!!!

All of Minter's games are some of the most tripped-out, psychedelic games you'll ever play. I think they're a prime example of being "creative" in gamemaking.

I don't care what you say... Having things like a toilet or a mandelbrot as bosses in Llamatron is pure genius.

For games without a substantial plotline (or one that only slowly develops), the feeling of interactivity leads one's imagination to fill in the gaps and craft their own storyline.  You apply personality traits to a character based upon their voiced words or even written text.  Even in an action game with only the most loose contrivance of a plot, the story has held twists and turns and feelings of vast relief. 

Ebert's devotion to the movie industry obviously makes him rather biased this way, and that much is understandable.  What betrays the inaccuracy most is his admission of never having played video games.  What comes to mind for him might run the range of Space Invaders to Super Mario Bros., or Wolfenstein to Grand Theft Auto.  Without having experiences anything within those ranges, it's like a literary reviewer not being able to differentiate between the immersion of Dr. Seuss's One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish and that of Grapes of Wrath.

It's an odd fact you mention here because I follow Ebert's reviews quite regularly and know that he's given three/four star reviews to quite a number of generic popcorn/blockbuster movies. I find it odd that he places so little faith in games (some with fairly deep plots) yet enjoys some movies with pretty generic stories.

Here's what kick-started the whole flood of feedback:

Q. I've been a gamer since I was very young, and I haven't been satisfied with most of the movies based on video games, with the exception of the first "Mortal Kombat" and "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within." These were successful as films because they did not try to be a tribute to the game, but films in their own right.

I have not seen "Doom," but don't plan to, nor do I think that it's fair to say that it pleases all gamers. Some of us appreciate film, too. That said, I was surprised at your denial of video games as a worthwhile use of your time. Are you implying that books and film are better mediums, or just better uses of your time?

Films and books have their scabs, as do games, but there are beautiful examples of video games out there -- see "Shadow of the Colossus," "Rez" or the forthcoming "PeaceMaker."

Josh Fishburn, Denver

A. I believe books and films are better mediums, and better uses of my time. But how can I say that when I admit I am unfamiliar with video games? Because I have recently seen classic films by Fassbinder, Ozu, Herzog, Scorsese and Kurosawa, and have recently read novels by Dickens, Cormac McCarthy, Bellow, Nabokov and Hugo, and if there were video games in the same league, someone somewhere who was familiar with the best work in all three mediums would have made a convincing argument in their defense.

I think it's fair to place Warren Spector or Tim Schafer as two affluent auteurs of the computer game industry, akin to the names Ebert mentions.

There are countless others. Peter Molyneux. Will Wright. Sid Meier. Al Lowe. Jeff Minter. Cliff Johnson.

This whole discussion was spawned from his review of the Doom movie. He said it was crap (and rightly so), but made side comments about the immersive and artistic qualities of computer games. Since Ebert admits he's never played computer games, maybe he should stick to critiquing moves and not games since he does not know what the hell he's talking about in this instance.

Or you could just not egg the living andhashdollarpercent out of it and stay law-abiding while she goes to jail.

I found a post by Remo on a recent article from Roger Ebert's page. There's a big debate there as to whether computer games are in the same league as movies and books.

Here's what Remo said as per the Ebert article:

From a posting by Chris Remo at Shacknews.com. Subject: "Ebert on Video Games: They are Inferior":

Ebert's rather crass response seems to suggest a limiting definition of what art can be, as well as an unfamiliarity with the sort of control game designers can in fact have over their audiences. Just as in the other forms Ebert mentions, in games that control can be expressed through narrative means or simply through a crafted experience.

For an example off the top of my head of the former, take the strange yet brutally familiar imagining of America presented in Tim Schafer's "Full Throttle" (PC). Set in what appears to be a post-apocalyptic landscape, the seemingly mundane backdrop of a hostile corporate takeover reaches incredible depth of significance. It becomes a metaphor for the country's slow decline into corporate facelessness and the odd juxtaposition between the freedom allowed by a recreated American frontier with the essential powerlessness of the frontier's inhabitants. You think I'm kidding? Play it again.

For another spur of the moment example in a more non-narrative setting, take Shigeru Miyamoto's "Pikmin" (GCN). Miyamoto didn't set out to necessarily create a quirky character-based real-time strategy title, though that's the form the game took. While working in his garden, he decided to craft a game that would evoke the melancholic and solitary feelings he was experiencing.... The fact that "Pikmin" so effectively communicates the emotions Miyamoto intended to convey is not simply an issue of craftsmanship (though craftsmanship is present in spades with the balanced and engaging gameplay), it speaks to the artistry with which the game was conceived.

It is frustrating to see current mainstream criticism -- and no critics are as synonymous with modern mainstream criticism as Ebert -- maintain deliberately ill-informed opinions about gaming as a medium. Not because gaming needs to be recognized as art, which is an opinion that is hotly contested among many gamers, but because it does such a grave disservice to the people behind the games, who are clearly capable of far more expression through their work than many seem prepared to acknowledge.

I also sent a response to Ebert along the same lines, using Deus Ex and Grim Fandango as examples.

The "computer games as art" topic has been often debated here, but now it seems there is some mainstream discussion.

Ebert's a critic I enjoy reading. However, I think he's got a very narrow perspective on what video games can be, and pretty much for the same reasons Remo stated.

Your thoughts?