In a stunning twist... (Spore and Tolerance)

[True_Avery]

From the thread "In Game Text dumps found on xSpore!"

"The Religious Super Weapons include the Faith Heal, Black Rain, and Messianic Uprising.

 

The Faith Heal is unlocked after capturing 3 Religious cities. You can use the Faith Heal on your own vehicles or buildings to heal all units in the area.

 

The Black Rain is unlocked after capturing 5 Religious cities. If you use Black Rain on a neighboring city, it will cause a large Black Storm to appear over the city, raining diseased creatures on their city. This causes extreme unhappiness making it easier to convert their city.

 

The Messianic Uprising is unlocked after capturing 7 cities. Launching the Messianic Uprising creates a large holographic image of your priests chanting over your city and sending your religion across the globes. Awestruck, all cities immediately convert to your nation. "

 

If this is true then I am severely disappointed. Such rampant mysticism should have no place in a game so explicitly scientific in nature. When I think of how much they've trumpeted their scientific credentials, making such a show of the sophisticated technical science behind their tutorials--and especially when I think of Mr. Wright's remarks about the inspirational potential of a science-based toy in fostering a rational outlook and a passion for the investigation of nature, I can't describe this as anything but hypocrisy.

 

Clerical healing powers are something out of dungeons and dragons, and have utterly no place in a science-based game.

 

One would hope they try to give this some kind of sciency veneer to integrate it with the rest of the Spore setting (e.g. they described the "Messianic Uprising" as involving a hologram), but I can't see how it would work.

 

And a further, related point--I've read that adopting a social strategy in the earlier game results inexorably in having religious cities in the Civ phase. This has no rational justification.

 

I am appalled.

http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?threadID=396975&start=0&tstart=0

 

I do read the threads here when I get the chance (though been a bit on the busy side lately).

 

As you might know I've been very interested in using Spore to motivate an interest in science. At the same time we want to make a fun, humorous, playful game. The superpowers in the game were added both to make early decisions you make in the game (cell, creature, tribe) continue to have consequence in the later levels and also to add more humor and playfulness to the overall experience.

 

If you look at the Civ superpowers they are more realistic for the economic and Military strategies than they are for the religious. We could have labeled the religious powers differently (maybe enhanced memetic transmission or fundamentalist jihad) and given them the same rough effect but they would have felt a bit more gritty and out-of-character with the rest of the game.

 

Usually when we hit design bumps like this we like to fall back into humor, it's something everyone can relate to and most tend to then view it as a metaphorical solution to something that's below the simulation level of detail.

 

A good example of this was in The Sims when the characters needed to do things that would have been messy to simulate. For instance when a sim needs to change clothes they jump in the air, spin around and are redressed. That's obviously not the way it works in reality. Also if they need a small object they always pull it from behind their back (the "everything comes out of your butt solution"). Most players understand these methods as a humorous metaphor for what would really happen.

 

The space level of Spore has a number of abilities that I guess you could argue might have technology solutions but that I personally view as highly unlikely (such as traversing a wormhole). Again these increase to playability and narrative density of what's possible in the game.

 

At the end of the day I think the "educational" impact of Spore is less important than the "motivational" impact. In other words, I'd rather promote an interest in the larger world around us instead of downloading known facts. To have the largest impact we first and foremost need to make a game that's compelling and fun to play.

 

This is a fascinating debate though (which is why I felt like I had to comment a bit) and I don't mean to end it. In fact I would love to hear everyone weigh in on what they think about the creative license that we're taking with these subjects.

 

- Will Wright

http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?threadID=396975&start=345&tstart=0

 

Apparently they are expecting gritty realism from a game made by Maxis, which makes them the unreasonable and irrational ones.

[Corinthian]

Intolerance isn't incorrect. It's an opinion. And all opinions are equally valid. (:

 

But the bigger problem here is the fact that we're losing our grasp on the English Language. I'm very tolerant - I don't even march in front of their homes. I just sit here and brood about their various disorders and how much of a blight upon the face of existence they are. I don't actually take action. People confuse the word 'Tolerate' with 'Accept'.

 

Also, I may have to play a Religion-Based Civilization, because those are some awesome and cool powers.

[mimartin]

Intolerance isn't incorrect. It's an opinion. And all opinions are equally valid. (:

All opinions are not equal according to an intolerant person. The intolerant persons views carry more weight and they dismiss views they don’t agree with.

The bigger problem is that the world has gotten the word 'Tolerance' confused with 'Acceptance'.

How so? By definition, tolerance is the acceptance of different views. You must have acceptance to be tolerant. Tolerance only takes it a step further saying you must also treat the other person fairly.

 

Tolerance - the acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views.

 

Tolerant- accepting the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and treating the people who hold these different views fairly.

 

Intolerance - unwillingness or refusal to accept people who are different from you, or views, beliefs, or lifestyles that differ from your own.

 

Intolerant - showing an unwillingness or refusal to accept people who are different from you, or views, beliefs, or lifestyles that differ from your own[/Quote]

[Achilles]

All opinions are not equal according to an intolerant person.

Hmmm...

 

I have an opinion that it's okay to kill people for wearing purple shirts on Tuesdays.

You have an opinion that it is not.

Both those ideas should be considered equal by anyone wishing not to appear intolerant?

 

If yes, how many of us qualify for that label? *raises hand first*

 

The intolerant persons views carry more weight and they dismiss views they don’t agree with.

So what do we call it when we dismiss views that don't agree with because they are wrong, false, based on poor info, based on poor reasoning, etc?

 

How so? By definition, tolerance is the acceptance of different views. You must have acceptance to be tolerant. Tolerance only takes it a step further saying you must also treat the other person fairly.

I suppose. I suppose this would make a lot of sense within the context of an argument which states that people cannot dismiss bad ideas without dismissing the person (as a person) as well.

[mimartin]

Both those ideas should be considered equal by anyone wishing not to appear intolerant?[/Quote] No. I believe the insane can be dismissed. I get your point that all views are not equal. That was not what my original post was about. Intolerance to me is dismissing an equally valid opinion (factually correct) just because it does not agree with your own.

 

Intolerance would also be me dismissing a more valid opinion/factually correct opinion, just because I disagree with it. Example: I dismiss your views on the afterlife just because I am a Christian.

 

If yes, how many of us qualify for that label? *raises hand first*[/Quote] *raises hand second* Never said I was tolerant. I would say by definition that very few if any are tolerant on all matters.

So what do we call it when we dismiss views that don't agree with because they are wrong, false, based on poor info, based on poor reasoning, etc?[/Quote]Personally, I just dismiss those views. I just don’t dismiss views off hand just because they don’t agree with my present views.

I suppose. I suppose this would make a lot of sense within the context of an argument which states that people cannot dismiss bad ideas without dismissing the person (as a person) as well.

I’d agree with that under that context.

[Web Rider]

You know, this tolerance debate is fascinating and all, but it isn't wholly related to the original topic of how atheists are apparently excepting a science-derived game to lack religion. Religion is an integral part of social evolution, including the lack of religion/belief(ie: atheism), and thus, has a place in the game, though, I'd be curious to know if there were some less mystical sounding powers in the same. The ones they have a great and all, but the atheists may have a point if the game explicitly relies on religious motivations to expand ones influence during gameplay.

[Achilles]

You know, this tolerance debate is fascinating and all, but it isn't wholly related to the original topic of how atheists are apparently excepting a science-derived game to lack religion.

That part of the thread died in post #21.

[Corinthian]

Tolerate (Verb)

 

1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.

2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.

 

By these standards, I'm extremely tolerant, and so are most people.

 

But absolute tolerance, even by the dictionary terms, is stupid. At what point do you draw the line and forfeit your vaunted Tolerance? Abortion? Infanticide? Out and out murder? What about child molesting? Tolerance is a disease.

[mimartin]

By these standards, I'm extremely tolerant, and so are most people.[/Quote] Has anyone accused you of not being intolerant? If your response was direct at me, I can honestly say I have no clue if you are tolerant or not as I don’t know you. I don’t know if your posts are all a ruse designed for a specific response or not. By the same token, you do not know me. For all you know I may be the grand wizard of the KKK.

But absolute tolerance, even by the dictionary terms, is stupid. [/Quote] I don’t know if I would use the term stupid, but I would use terms like impractical or unrealistic in agreement with you.

At what point do you draw the line and forfeit your vaunted Tolerance?[/Quote]If this was directed at me, why would you consider me tolerant? I stated above that I never said I was tolerant.

 

I think I made that clear in my response with Achilles, but I will reiterate it for you. I do listen to other views and put myself in their shoes in trying to understand their point of view. The insane I do dismiss. Those that violate society’s laws I dismiss. If their arguments are valid and equal to mine I respect their conclusion. That does not mean I agree with them. If their arguments have greater validity then I may change my point of view. Then again, while respecting their point of view, I may act illogical and continue to give my opinion more validity.

Tolerance is a disease.

As is intolerance. Whatever you want to call it, intolerance, bigotry, prejudice or narrow-mindedness restricts the flow of knowledge and information. While tolerance or open-mindedness can mean wading through invalid or illogical information in order to find new knowledge.

 

From this remark

The bigger problem is that the world has gotten the word 'Tolerance' confused with 'Acceptance'. [/Quote] How has the world gotten the words tolerance and acceptance confused?

Just because you're tolerant doesn't mean you can't correct people who are incorrect.

According to ElSitherino’s reply it does not sound to me like the entire world has gotten them confused.

 

Could it be that people are confusing listening to others ideas as agreement with those ideas? At least to me those are two totally different concepts.

[Corinthian]

Contemplate how people use the word 'Tolerance' for a moment. Then look at the definition I posted. Do you see a dissonance? Because I do.

[mimartin]

Contemplate how people use the word 'Tolerance' for a moment. Then look at the definition I posted. Do you see a dissonance? Because I do.

So you make a statement then refuse to back up your claim?

 

Yes, I’d agree some people do use the word tolerant incorrectly, but you originally said the world, not people.

[El Sitherino]

Tolerance is accepting people have a different view. I'm tolerant, however I will disagree with someone who's reasoning is based on untrue information, or argues a point incorrectly. It isn't a matter of opinion, debate is a matter of fact.

[jonathan7]

J7's version of tolerance...

 

Tolerance, is allowing an individual the freedom to think and speak as they wish. (I follow John Stuart Mills theory that those with evil opinions, should be allowed to speak, so you can show them up for what they are - indeed often by trying to stop such people from expressing themselves you draw more attention to them, and/or make the seem cool/attractive/oppressed). With regards action, I think people should be allowed to act as they like, as long as they are not harming others. That at least for me is what tolerance is.

[Emperor Devon]

<stuffs>

 

All right, good to see exactly what the other side has issue with. Now I can safely say they're being idiots.

[Jae Onasi]

Here's the best way atheists can express their dislike for the game: don't buy it.

The game maker has the right to make the game any way they see fit (provided it's legal) and feel will make a decent profit.

[Astor]

Here's the best way atheists can express their dislike for the game: don't buy it.

The game maker has the right to make the game any way they see fit (provided it's legal) and feel will make a decent profit.

 

Ah, but you see Jae, then the attention seeking little upstarts won't have any reason to climb on their soapboxes and complain.

 

Poor souls, they need the attention.

 

But a Militant atheist, which I take to mean someone who'll actively try to dispute the existence of a higher power at every opportunity is going to complain whether they buy the game or not.

 

Just no-one tell the Salvation 'army'...

[mimartin]

Here's the best way atheists can express their dislike for the game: don't buy it.

 

The game maker has the right to make the game any way they see fit (provided it's legal) and feel will make a decent profit.

I totally agree with this, provided we are not just talking about atheists, but anyone that has a dislike or prejudice for a particular game, movie, television show, book... If someone does not like it, just don’t buy it. I wish all these special interest would stop trying to save my soul, morality or intelligence. Let me make up my own mind to what I like and/or what I find offensive. I should be allowed to be stupid or go to hell if I want. I respect them enough to allow them to do the same.