A Week In Comments

Christ’s crack development team are already leaking trailers for the sequel in what Molyneux calls the most exciting social networking of the time. “You’ve got these guys, and they’re actually writing letters! That’s something we wanted the player to be able to do in Fable 2, write letters while trapped in the tower away from your family, but without full 3-D motion sensors to capture the penmanship it’s just not visceral enough to test well. It’s a concept we’re very excited about for Fable 3.”

Molyneux also drew comparisons between himself and Jesus, saying “I feel like, for both of us, our work is misinterpreted and really requires time to understand in the proper context.” The game developer didn’t have any advice except to look on the bright side, and hoped Jesus knew that everyone gets treated poorly by the press when they try something too new. “Golly, I thought some of the reviews my games get were over the line, but they’ve all but crucified this poor fellow.”

I know the general concept of art is different to every person, but I don’t think that much artistry can go into something and yet the whole not be so. In addition, if modern art, sometimes nothing more than squares of color, sculptures of human feces, or pictures of urinals can be considered by some as art, then games definitely are.

To me, and to most artistic friends and musicians I’ve worked with, anything that can inspire, can share an experience, anything that has love and attention put into it, anything that can tell a story or create a world or move you is art, and in that way, games have been since their inception. There will always be those that point to particulars as what is or what isn’t but to ignore the potential not yet created and the achievements already earned, and to deny games the possibility of being called art, is to deny art itself.

Alright, getting that bit of peacemaking out of the way, no, I, and most true progressives (so… not the ones on television or making asses out of themselves on anonymous forums) do not believe that opposing the health care bill automatically makes one ignorant, intelligent, or even uncaring. There are opposing philosophies that cannot help but come to a head on certain issues, the boundaries of public service being chief among them. As the only people who will see substantial tax increases are in the higher brackets of our society (which does include much of my own family), I do not feel any sympathy towards those who will experience increased taxes to benefit the needy in this regard. Let us not forget the laundry list of tax breaks that this portion of the population enjoys anyway, allowing them to “offer up” a smaller percentage of their total income than those who are less wealthy.

Putting that aside, I believe that all citizens should be allowed to have the kind of coverage that I am lucky enough to have had throughout my life. I do not think that people opposed to the bill are simply heartless. I understand that it this fissure is caused by differing social philosophies rather than a lack of compassion. Most conservatives advocate an absolutely free market, moderated itself by that damned “invisible hand” concept. I wholly disagree with just about all assumptions made by this theory, but whatever, it is good for a society to have a diverse range of ideologies accepted by its population.

The end fact is, Obama’s presidential campaign focused heavily on the need for health care reform and a majority of American’s believe that it is necessary. True, there is not a majority of American’s who approve of this specific bill, but that is because it is a multifaceted issue that is impossible to please all with one single set of approaches. People in support of health care reform want slightly different things, there isn’t going to be any ONE bill that fits what everybody would like.

With health care being a cornerstone of his campaign, Obama won the popular vote. A majority of Americans are in favor of this type of aggressive health care reform. For you, I’m afraid this means that you are on the losing side of this issue and have to deal with the fact that our country is going to try this out. Do you think that the last eight years were easy for us? Argue it all you want, because that is exactly what you should do. In the same way that I felt (and continue to feel) it my responsibility to protest the two wars we are involved in or the allocation (and encouragement) of gross financial “big business” misconduct, you should feel it your own responsibility to argue against what you do not agree with, just ::please:: argue it responsibly.

The opposing force to the bill has, sadly, been characterized by misinformation and manipulative tactics. I know that this is not a fair generalization of the conservative population and anyone who actually knows thoughtful people with a wide range of beliefs would surely agree with me on that. Republicans (switching over from “conservatives” now) are getting a lot of shit right now, but maybe they deserve it. Almost every prominent vocal member of the republican party is seen spouting some bit of inflammatory and factually inaccurate information on a weekly basis. Sarah Palin. Michele Bachman. John Boehner. Dick Cheney. These are the worst offenders, in my opinion. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren’t doing much to improve the perceived validity of the modern conservative voice in America, either. If conservatives are sick of being represented in this way, then for god’s sake stop supporting these kinds of political figures.

There are plenty of big name Democrats who are awful public leaders as well, but at least they do not come across quite so shameless in their ways of misleading the public, even if this is only managed through a different set of tactics. I would love to see all of those clowns replaced by a mix of conservative and liberal politicians acting with integrity and with the interest of the American people, not insurance lobbies (which both parties are shamelessly guilty of), in mind.

You clearly object to any system that “pushes the costs of insuring all those poor people to the states themselves,” but it would probably help your case to word it in a less inflammatory way. Unless, of course, you truly are devoid of any respect for those less fortunate than yourself. I doubt that this is the case, but that is how you made yourself come across.

I do not blame you for finding insult in Kyosen’s comment of residing in one of those “backwater” states themselves, but you then insinuate that all democrats place themselves on a higher level than republicans…

Shallow accusations of republicans being backwater-type citizens vs. shallow accusations of democrats being elitist snobs. I fail to see how you are being any more mature in this situation

There are really two ways around this, though, while maintaining branching story-lines: 1) telegraph REALLY LOUDLY to the player what’s going to happen when they make one decision or another, so you know you’re picking the “never encounter the dragon” option; 2) make something equally awesome happen no matter which decision you make, so you don’t feel screwed either way.

It seems like these are some pretty obvious solutions, and I don’t know why Molyneux isn’t talking about one of these. Granted, some people don’t like it when the game telegraphs what will happen with each option, and what is “equally awesome” is a really subjective determination, but IMHO it’s better than eliminating the forking altogether.

Want to nominate comments? Send to tips any insightful or funny comments you read from other commenters. (Read: NOT YOURSELF). Be sure to include the post’s URL, the commenter’s page, the actual comment and your commenter page.