joho wrote:
You may not realize but this is NOT a sedentary game. You have to get out and walk around to find the pokemon. My wife and I sit at outside at a restaurant Sunday evening near our home watching 75+ folks walking around looking for Pokemon at a downtown area. I thought it was pretty neat.
There will be the tech-savvy players that can spoof their GPS coordinates, pipe line them in from a map app, and just surf around from their chairs snatching up prizes.
USATF or Athletics Canada should sponsor it. Send everyone to the track chasing a pokemon doing 20x400 in 65s. A new pokemon appears every 60s. Let's train the next generation of runners.
Or have a pokemon doing 20kmh on a tempo run.
This thread is hilarious. People are complaining that todays generation is increasingly sedentary but when a game with an innovative dynamic forces kids in large numbers outside you guys protest??? The premise of the game is that you have to walk and explore to find rare Pokemon. There are elements such as eggs where you have to walk up to 10k to hatch it. I've never seen the parks near me used as much. I personally play and have met so many cool people of all age ranges around town because this game forces socialization between people. I feel like I shouldn't put in the time to respond to you guys but this game is doing a lot of good. People will be idiots and get hurt with any technology, I don't think you can blame a game for people making poor choices. The game even puts in measures to stop the game from working when you drive at approximately above a bicycles speed. If anyone has any questions about the game I'd love to answer.
Fact Based Science wrote:
no go wrote:The world has been given another reason for millions of people to keep their heads buried in the phones, oblivious to their surroundings, whether walking, running, cycling ... and driving. My daughter narrowly avoided a collision with a chaser last night who blew through a red light, phone up looking for monsters, and who had no idea the light had changed.
It's only been out a few days and already is causing havoc.
Seriously, how can anyone think this is a good idea? I don't believe a caveat 'play responsible' message is sufficient.
0/10
Impossible to play when driving or riding in a car.
Try again.
Nope. My daughter plays all the time when she goes with me to the store.
.
Psycho-logist wrote:
In all honestly, you can go back over a century and see examples of "distractions" which parents did not approve of.
In the 1800's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by books.
In the 1940's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by radio.
In the 1980's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by television.
In the 1990's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by the internet and by rap music containing explicit lyrics.
In the 2000's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by video games (to be fair, this went back a few decades as well).
After 2010, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by smartphones and mobile devices.
Now, its 2016, and Pokemon Go is the latest bogeyman.
Kids will always be bored, and are increasingly overworked by helicopter parents. They will always seek escapism in whatever form is popular, and I think that this current fad is much less harmful than previous ones. I would rather kids run around finding pokemons instead of playing Minecraft.
Kind of a reductionist, simplistic argument:
Parents' "fear" in a given era about a given "distraction" doesn't necessarily correlate with the harm the activity may do.
Fearing that books and reading are harmful would be based in ignorance of their benefits.
Being concerned about the brain-altering and psychological effects of being addicted like a Pavlovian dog to the bells, whistles and instant gratification offered by a digital device is far more valid. Especially when the activity supplants and comes at the expense of other richer, more beneficial activities.
Apples and oranges. Some fears are intelligent and legitimate, some are not.
Well, it's definitely a sensation. I cannot believe the numbers of people playing it. Even downtown at work, and not just kids. I wrote upthread, and others have echoed, how we've never seen so many people in the park where we run. It was surprising and sort of annoying. But, yes, there is the positive of getting kids off their butts and walking around. I wonder how long this craze lasts. Of course the Pokemon developers will eventually update and upgrade the game multiple times as to provide new challenges.
Fugue wrote:
If anyone has any questions about the game I'd love to answer.
People drive and play, despite the so-called safeguard. Not a question. Just a fact.
Steve Martin wrote:
Fact Based Science wrote:0/10
Impossible to play when driving or riding in a car.
Try again.
Nope. My daughter plays all the time when she goes with me to the store.
No she don't. The game doesn't allow it.
Fugue wrote:
There are elements such as eggs where you have to walk up to 10k to hatch it.
Sounds like I can make a few bucks by charging the fat kids to carry their phones with me on my morning runs. Letsrun could turn into an egg hatching service
Fugue wrote:
This thread is hilarious. People are complaining that todays generation is increasingly sedentary but when a game with an innovative dynamic forces kids in large numbers outside you guys protest??? The premise of the game is that you have to walk and explore to find rare Pokemon. There are elements such as eggs where you have to walk up to 10k to hatch it. I've never seen the parks near me used as much. I personally play and have met so many cool people of all age ranges around town because this game forces socialization between people. I feel like I shouldn't put in the time to respond to you guys but this game is doing a lot of good. People will be idiots and get hurt with any technology, I don't think you can blame a game for people making poor choices. The game even puts in measures to stop the game from working when you drive at approximately above a bicycles speed. If anyone has any questions about the game I'd love to answer.
So tell us, what lead you to your decision to delay losing your virginity until age 40?
From what I have seen of that game, the world map is incredibly primitive, around 80's-desktop-computer level, interspersed with cheap animations of pokemons in front of background scenery.
And the concept of wandering around the real world looking for made-up animals takes video-game wastage to a new level. How about looking for real animals instead? Isn't anyone interested in real wildlife? (Besides birds, to all the idiot duck photographers out there.)
There's bugs, and snakes, and scorpions, and rabbits, and water striders, and minnows, and raccoons, and bears, and beetles, and ants, and lizards, and bobcats, and wolves, and spiders, and skinks, and geckos, and mice, and chipmunks, and squirrels, and horses, and cows, and goats, and wild boars, and anteaters, and hedgehogs, and mantids, and crayfish, and catfish, and silverfish, and clams, and lobsters, and snails, and frogs, and toads, and all kinds of critters.
I don't know how many types of Pokemons have been invented but I doubt it's anywhere near as many as the 60,000 species of vertebrate animal out there, never mind the millions (counting undiscovered) of invertebrate species. Other than going to a pond to point a camera at a damn duck, people would rather stare at imaginary creatures on a screen than the real ones around them.
Da Tuth wrote:
No she don't. The game doesn't allow it.
I play in the car all the time. My friend and I drive around to local Poke Stops and one of us controls both phones. Sometimes, I even drive through my hood and grab them by myself ;)
That said, I've also never walked so much in my life. Been on multiple 3+ mile walks PER DAY the last week. Also have never seen so many people at our local parks.
"Kids today entertain themselves differently than I did therefore it's bad!"
Every old person in this thread.
TAA wrote:
"Kids today entertain themselves differently than I did therefore it's bad!"
Every old person in this thread.
Just keep them kids off my lawn. I tell ya.
Boomers and Gen Xers today. smh
nonotreally wrote:
.
Psycho-logist wrote:In all honestly, you can go back over a century and see examples of "distractions" which parents did not approve of.
In the 1800's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by books.
In the 1940's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by radio.
In the 1980's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by television.
In the 1990's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by the internet and by rap music containing explicit lyrics.
In the 2000's, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by video games (to be fair, this went back a few decades as well).
After 2010, parents feared that their children's minds would be corrupted by smartphones and mobile devices.
Now, its 2016, and Pokemon Go is the latest bogeyman.
Kids will always be bored, and are increasingly overworked by helicopter parents. They will always seek escapism in whatever form is popular, and I think that this current fad is much less harmful than previous ones. I would rather kids run around finding pokemons instead of playing Minecraft.
Kind of a reductionist, simplistic argument:
Parents' "fear" in a given era about a given "distraction" doesn't necessarily correlate with the harm the activity may do.
Fearing that books and reading are harmful would be based in ignorance of their benefits.
Being concerned about the brain-altering and psychological effects of being addicted like a Pavlovian dog to the bells, whistles and instant gratification offered by a digital device is far more valid. Especially when the activity supplants and comes at the expense of other richer, more beneficial activities.
Apples and oranges. Some fears are intelligent and legitimate, some are not.
Richer and more beneficial activities? What could be more beneficial than getting sedentary people out walking?
Bad Wigins wrote:
From what I have seen of that game, the world map is incredibly primitive, around 80's-desktop-computer level, interspersed with cheap animations of pokemons in front of background scenery.
And the concept of wandering around the real world looking for made-up animals takes video-game wastage to a new level. How about looking for real animals instead? Isn't anyone interested in real wildlife? (Besides birds, to all the idiot duck photographers out there.)
There's bugs, and snakes, and scorpions, and rabbits, and water striders, and minnows, and raccoons, and bears, and beetles, and ants, and lizards, and bobcats, and wolves, and spiders, and skinks, and geckos, and mice, and chipmunks, and squirrels, and horses, and cows, and goats, and wild boars, and anteaters, and hedgehogs, and mantids, and crayfish, and catfish, and silverfish, and clams, and lobsters, and snails, and frogs, and toads, and all kinds of critters.
I don't know how many types of Pokemons have been invented but I doubt it's anywhere near as many as the 60,000 species of vertebrate animal out there, never mind the millions (counting undiscovered) of invertebrate species. Other than going to a pond to point a camera at a damn duck, people would rather stare at imaginary creatures on a screen than the real ones around them.
No reason people can't both look for pokemon and real animals, but most people live in urban or suburban areas, where all the trees and habitat for animals (Real) have been turned into strip malls and parking lots or neighborhoods (everyone needs a single family home you know!). Pokemon live at wifi hotspots, which exist in this environment, animals live in protected wildlife areas, state forests, national parks, etc. where pokemon don't because of limited wifi connectivity. There is some crossover, but the real issue isn't that people aren't interested in wildlife, but that we've allowed the country to be torn up and paved over, or at least previous generations did.
I agree ducks are stupid.
Apparently some kids in Minnesota got lost in a local forest preserve yesterday playing Pokemon Go. The police purportedly shut the preserve down so that they could comb it and find the kids.
Bad Wigins wrote:
From what I have seen of that game, the world map is incredibly primitive, around 80's-desktop-computer level, interspersed with cheap animations of pokemons in front of background scenery.
And the concept of wandering around the real world looking for made-up animals takes video-game wastage to a new level. How about looking for real animals instead? Isn't anyone interested in real wildlife? (Besides birds, to all the idiot duck photographers out there.)
There's bugs, and snakes, and scorpions, and rabbits, and water striders, and minnows, and raccoons, and bears, and beetles, and ants, and lizards, and bobcats, and wolves, and spiders, and skinks, and geckos, and mice, and chipmunks, and squirrels, and horses, and cows, and goats, and wild boars, and anteaters, and hedgehogs, and mantids, and crayfish, and catfish, and silverfish, and clams, and lobsters, and snails, and frogs, and toads, and all kinds of critters.
I don't know how many types of Pokemons have been invented but I doubt it's anywhere near as many as the 60,000 species of vertebrate animal out there, never mind the millions (counting undiscovered) of invertebrate species. Other than going to a pond to point a camera at a damn duck, people would rather stare at imaginary creatures on a screen than the real ones around them.
Wait. What?
Why can't people do both...AT THE SAME TIME.
Boomers and Generation Xers - get out from your cubicle. There's a whole world out there.
That game is for millennial wimps/fairies.
That game is for millennial wimps/fairies.