I have gone to some of my older games and found even to this day they are enjoyable. Older games can still have a charm. There is nothing wrong with finding older games still good. I am sure that there are older games that have unique ideals that newer games do not have.

You should not let you judgment be clouded by the past. Games will change there is nothing anyone can do about that. Some game types will improve and some will become stagnate. A major problem I found with Rage is that the level design is old and did not take into account any innovation that has take place in FPS level single design.

With that side, a person also can not become clouded by the current or future games as well. Not all changes are good and some could ruin the game for some players. I seen many comments about how they should get rid of turn base since it is old, and that is a bad ideal. Turn base is still a fun game play style that allows for different game play options that other type of games can not even get close to giving.

Also there is a logical fallacy where a person attack person making the statement. For example saying someone is suck in the past.

wiouds

this is a nice quote, although there were several very good things said, I think.

thanks for the citation to Galerians!

I haven't posted here in years. Why do I now? The Sunday paper had an article about electronic music, specifically Zedd, and I found that Zedd does a version of the Legend of Zelda theme--now, that's nice. A mix of old and new. It was quite moving listening to it

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-play-0317-arcade-20110317,0,5054267.story

I was going to say it looks like a money-maker, but look at all the effort and skill it takes!

I guess I won't try to open one.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_paumgarten?currentPage=all

I am still reading it: I think it's great; it's the most prestigious American magazine. .

Merry Christmas to all.

Yeah, he is. He won't say a word against steroids, even though football players and others were dying; some of the Pittsburgh Steelers who used to be my team died. He used steroids when he won some or all of those Mr. Olympia's, I think about the one in Germany where he was unbelievable, maybe because he had to top Sergio Oliva, and today's bodybuilders use them and he knows it.

It was sort of predictable California would be the state the Supreme Court wanted to hear: a lot of the video game makers are there, I think, Silicon Valley, etc.

That was funny. Justice Sotomayor should have asked him about Spock, half-human, half-Vulcan.

Most fascinating thing I've read in a while--thank you for mentioning the transcript. I looked for GameSpot's coverage but couldn't find it. I'll look again.

I was wrong that California's argument was violent video games cause violent behavior.

Justice Thomas was the only one who didn't speak. I think he has said something only twice his whole career.

He should have jumped in.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf

Official transcript of the argument yesterday.

[QUOTE="Remy_Labue"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]The only people getting up in arms about it are the games industry and children.ChiliDragon

I understand that, but why is the industry getting upset? How will this change what they're doing right now?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1448.pdf

Official transcript.

Thanks for the heads-up.

The state of California cited the message in its written argument ("brief") to the US Supreme Court which argued about that particular Playstation 3 forum message today.

California's brief (see page 21):

http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/Schwarzenegger_State%20Reply%20Brief_10.15.10.pdf

California is showing that parental controls don't work.