I'm 18 and I hate a majority of music today. It is my opinion that this is the worst decade for music in history. Give me Tom Petty or Alice Cooper any day. (Of course, there are the few random good bands today, but I'm speaking on the whole.)
So far as the "taking an alcoholic to the bar" analogy, maybe people should simply have a better grasp on reality. If you don't have any money, guess what you do... Don't spend it! As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as a "spendaholic" so I'm under no obligation to feel sympathy for people who go blow all their money as soon as they get it, and still haven't spent enough.
As far as the accident/job loss/illness part goes... Sad as all that is (and, believe me, I understand what you're getting at, and I'm not trying to pass it off as no big deal), it's like homeless people stealing food. We're not going to make stealing legal just because a minority more-or-less have to do it to survive, so I don't really see why this should be any different.
So let's just take a look at the last paragraph, since the rest has been done to death.
First you take a stab at our "buy now, pay later" culture, which you seem to think is wrong (and I agree). Then you immediately try to defend everyone guilty of doing that by using the term "dirty citizens" sarcastically.
So are you... For it, or against it? You've got to pick a side, there. Personally I'm against idiots spending more money than they have, and then declaring bankruptcy to get out of it, so I'm happy they changed the law, there.
You, on the other hand, seem to dislike people doing it, but you also want to defend their ability to do so. Like I say: Pick a side.
And, whether or not they knew Nintendo and Sony's policies (I'm sure they did), and regardless of if they gave it this rating simply to keep it from being released... That's still an indirect effect. Maybe Nintendo or Sony would have eased up on their AO ban, just this one time?
No matter how you put it, the ESRB simply rated a game, which is what it's supposed to do.
What is everyone so upset about? Half of the comments on here are either anti-ESRB or anti-USA. Why?
Last I checked, the US hadn't banned the game. So there's no reason for that.
And the ESRB didn't ban it, either. The ESRB's website says a game gets an AO is it has "prolonged scenes of intense violence," and, from my understanding, if you "charge up" (presumably hold a button or something) for a kill, it will take longer to do (it will be more complex, or brutal). In other words, it will be PROLONGED.
If you have hostility for this game not being released, blame either Nintendo, Sony, or the countries that are banning it. The ESRB rated the game appropriately and were not directly involved in it not hitting shelves.
This whole story is insane. Miyamoto's comment has been taken entirely out of context, in most cases.
It's quite obvious that he was simply trying to say that what he does is makes games HE thinks are fun; he doesn't look at what the population is finding fun at the time and copy that. Halo was used as an example purely because that's what the reporter said.
He wasn't trying to slam Bungie in any way. I mean, come on. Has he EVER slammed ANYONE?
It's not that Miyamoto was being mean, it's that Bungie was being oversensitive.
That's a convincing argument you have there! I didn't feel the need to clarify it further because it was such an obvious statement.
And the entire rest of your argument supported what I was saying.
What you were replying to ("doing the same thing over and over") was referencing graphics. The post I replied to stated that the only advancements in video games over the past 20 years were graphical, and I was commenting on how ridiculous that was.
I fully agree that advancements in gameplay have been made. That's what I want. I was arguing that graphics have an insanely low ranking in the lineup of things that make games worth playing.
...the ability to deliver more sophiscated graphics and high speed internet access have been key to allowing innovation to happen. No?
Maybe you're confused. The entire rest of your comment was about gameplay innovation, and then you threw in graphics and internet. Which have little, if any, effect on gameplay.
Going from playing against someone on your couch to playing against someone on a couch a thousand miles away has nothing to do with gameplay at all. Sure, it's an innovation in that you can connect with other people, but, again, not gameplay.
If graphics mean this much to you, I'd recommend walking outside. I hear the resolution is FANTASTIC.
Meanwhile, I'll be playing Space Invaders.
And so far as it being the only improvement over the last 20 years? Soo... Are you saying that innovation is worth nothing and, to keep making "better" consoles, we just need to keep doing the same thing over and over and over? Because that's pretty much EXACTLY wrong.
Um. Your argument essentially hinges on the fact that the most impressive Wii game is Wii Sports. That's a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?
Unless you are implying Super Paper Mario or Warioware are "inadequate imitations of what we can choose to do in real life." I don't know about you, but I can't flip to other dimensions (ala Paper Mario).
Nintendo ISN'T losing money on every console sold.
Maybe Sony and Microsoft need to take a look at the Wii's success and figure out that gamers don't want pretty graphics at outrageous prices. We want to have FUN.
There is absolutely nothing, in my mind, to justify paying $600 for a video game console. If I wanted ridiculous graphics, I'd go outside. I hear the resolution is FANTASTIC.
Let me preface this by pointing out the fact that I am 17.
I started out playing a SNES when I was five years old. I've never had more fun. The SNES was and continues to be my favorite game console.
Granted, I continue to buy new consoles and handhelds, but, fun though the Wii and DS may be, I really am not having as much fun as I was on the SNES, Genesis, and even the Playstation (not to mention old PC games like Starcraft and Diablo II). And Nintendo is the only company doing anything even CLOSE to beating those old systems.
I suppose the phrase "they just don't make 'em like they used to" applies here.
I was worried you had a good point right up until the DS note you threw in there.
If your DS is collecting dust, you clearly are not the sort of gamer Nintendo is catering to. If you are unable to appreciate titles like Phoenix Wright, Magical Starsign, Starfox: Assault, and New Super Mario Bros (to name a few), then maybe you should go get a PSP so you can watch some movies for a while.
One thing I feel should be noted is that in the Wii game Warioware: Smooth Moves, there is a game mode exclusively designed to give you a workout.
For anyone familiar with the actual game, it has microgames in which you have five seconds to perform some sort of action with the Wiimote.
Well, in "workout mode" (not the official name, by the way), you exclusively play games which require a lot of movement, and you play them longer than you would in normal gameplay.
They include moving your arms up and down like you're running, "pumping" the Wiimote up and down really fast like a barbell, and various other things.
If you go all-out on it, it really does tire you out, regardless of how fit you are. The Wii can be a great workout if used properly.
You mentioned some differences, but you left out that these features didn't cause the price of the Wii to go up at all.
And, as I've said before, if you disconnected your Wii from the internet, one could easily be unaware of their existance. Nintendo didn't shove them down our throats, like Sony always enjoys doing.
Wii: A gaming device with some extra, FREE (save for the browser, which is entirely optional), features.
PS3: Multimedia center on which, to be able to play the games, you MUST buy a movie player, an MP3 player, etc, etc.
Well that falls into what I said. You didn't buy a gaming system. (If you had been out to buy a gaming system, you wouldn't have wanted to waste cash on all the extras Sony likes shoving down our throats.) You bought a multimedia center. And you got exactly what you wanted.
In many other replies to my comment, I've seen it mentioned that the Wii can surf the web and show you weather and news. Well, this is true, but none of these caused the price to rise at all, and none of them are even mandatory. If you never updated your Wii, you could, theoretically, be completely unaware of their existance.
This is Sony's problem. They don't like "add-ons". They like to force things on everyone. Let's have a couple examples.
Nintendo meeting: "Hey, can we create something the user can use to read news from all around the world? That could be useful, we should get that out when we can!"
Sony meeting: "PEOPLE LOVE PLAYING MOVIES. THEY WILL LIKE IT ON THE PS3. BECAUSE WE SAY THEY WILL."
I mean, think of it. You would've been just about as happy to buy a PS3 for much, much less money, and then buy the add-ons, right? But the people who DON'T want those attachments are completely screwed.
Because all of those features shipped right alone with it, right?
Oh, wait, Nintendo was focusing on games and giving players the option to download those extra features later.
If you want to get specific, yes, the Wii web browser will cost money. If you choose to buy it. Personally, I won't.
The difference between Nintendo and Sony is that Sony develops these HARDWARE features (a bit different than downloading some software), causing the price of their system to skyrocket, and forces you to pay for these features.
When I bought my Wii, I bought a game system. If you disconnected your Wii from the internet (or simply didn't update it), you would not have the feature to see news or weather at all.
The Wii is selling like hotcakes and the PS3 is already requiring a price drop.
Anyone else betting that Sony learns nothing from this?
They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.
Badmouthing the competition may be commonplace, but Sony does it to the extent of simply making themselves look horrible. You'd think they'd learn when to quit.
Back in the DS/PSP launch days, all you heard were articles about Sony predicting how much better the PSP would do than the DS... All the while, Nintendo kept releasing statements saying they were not in direct competition with Sony, and that each company had a different strategy. (Which is true. Nintendo was releasing a game console. Sony was releasing a movie player/MP3 player/image viewer/dishwasher which also happened to be able to play games.)
If I had to pick one reason I didn't like Sony, it'd be their arrogance and inability to shut up.
Exactly what I was thinking when I wrote this. Nintendo is essentially the one company still trying to be innovative in the industry, and they're not going anywhere soon. (Nexgenwars.com, anyone?)
Also, I argue the older gamers are really the only true ones, anymore.
"Hard-core" gamers have become mindless Sony drones, Grand Theft Autoing into eternity. For these people, these are the required components for a game to be fun: The best graphics ever, blood, sex of some kind (women with large breasts, etc.), and an M or higher rating. In my opinion, this is not being a gamer at all.
Going back to what I said about older gamers... You cannot truly appreciate FUN games unless you started out on, say, the SNES or Sega Genesis (or older). In those days, games were purely about having fun. Graphics was not even an issue.
And I use the SNES as an example there simply to lead into the fact that this is still Nintendo's philosophy. While we have Sony badmouthing its competition and developing $600 console powerhouses, Nintendo is in their little corner seeing what they can do to actually make things more fun.
And this is what the gaming industry needs. If I wanted to WATCH a game (stare at pretty graphics), I'd have bought a DVD instead of a video game.
Who will even care at that point? The PS4 (which will likely be the name, since Sony is so original with that type of thing) will be out around that time, and the PS3 will be ancient history.
If it takes them that long to pull ahead, I'd say they've lost this generation.
People derogatively calling DS and Wii "gimmicks" is really getting old.
Let's take a look, here.
(From Dictionary.com) Gimmick: an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
I can't really see how that is a bad thing.
Furthermore, that basically says that anything designed to attract attention is a gimmick. Sooo... Let's say the sleek, black design of the PS3. I bet that was designed to attract attention. OH MY GOD IT'S A GIMMICK.
Those are eerily accurate reviews. And reviews are something I rarely agree with.
Elebits is definitely worth a rent, if not a buy. I do plan on purchasing it at some point (I argue that it does have some "pick up and play again" type of replay value, because it is a really fun game to mess with, not to mention that you can create your own levels), but other games keep pushing it back on the "next to buy" list.
Warioware is clearly a buy. No doubt. If only for how intense it is.
When you first start your single-player campaign, you begin with a nice little cutscene... And then suddenly burst into nine rapid-fire minigames. It reminded me so much of the first "PRESS A" cutscene in Resident Evil 4 (which did end up getting me killed once, I will admit), I can't even describe.
Plus, as the article says, going back through single-player is definitely worth it. You go back through a "level" and you just keep doing minigames (which come at you faster and faster the farther you progress) until you fail four times. It simply gets hilarious nearing the end, when you can hardly keep up with anything at all.
Bottom line: Both are good. Renting Elebits before buying it is a good plan, but would only be a waste of cash with Warioware.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm 18 and I hate a majority of music today. It is my opinion that this is the worst decade for music in history. Give me Tom Petty or Alice Cooper any day. (Of course, there are the few random good bands today, but I'm speaking on the whole.)
Does that count?
You mean like Morgan Freeman?
And compared to, say, an airplane, the NeoGeo was a bargain.
Just because it's comparatively better than something else doesn't mean it isn't still a huge ripoff.
So far as the "taking an alcoholic to the bar" analogy, maybe people should simply have a better grasp on reality. If you don't have any money, guess what you do... Don't spend it! As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as a "spendaholic" so I'm under no obligation to feel sympathy for people who go blow all their money as soon as they get it, and still haven't spent enough.
As far as the accident/job loss/illness part goes... Sad as all that is (and, believe me, I understand what you're getting at, and I'm not trying to pass it off as no big deal), it's like homeless people stealing food. We're not going to make stealing legal just because a minority more-or-less have to do it to survive, so I don't really see why this should be any different.
So let's just take a look at the last paragraph, since the rest has been done to death.
First you take a stab at our "buy now, pay later" culture, which you seem to think is wrong (and I agree). Then you immediately try to defend everyone guilty of doing that by using the term "dirty citizens" sarcastically.
So are you... For it, or against it? You've got to pick a side, there. Personally I'm against idiots spending more money than they have, and then declaring bankruptcy to get out of it, so I'm happy they changed the law, there.
You, on the other hand, seem to dislike people doing it, but you also want to defend their ability to do so. Like I say: Pick a side.
Exactly. The ESRB simply did its job.
And, whether or not they knew Nintendo and Sony's policies (I'm sure they did), and regardless of if they gave it this rating simply to keep it from being released... That's still an indirect effect. Maybe Nintendo or Sony would have eased up on their AO ban, just this one time?
No matter how you put it, the ESRB simply rated a game, which is what it's supposed to do.
What is everyone so upset about? Half of the comments on here are either anti-ESRB or anti-USA. Why?
Last I checked, the US hadn't banned the game. So there's no reason for that.
And the ESRB didn't ban it, either. The ESRB's website says a game gets an AO is it has "prolonged scenes of intense violence," and, from my understanding, if you "charge up" (presumably hold a button or something) for a kill, it will take longer to do (it will be more complex, or brutal). In other words, it will be PROLONGED.
If you have hostility for this game not being released, blame either Nintendo, Sony, or the countries that are banning it. The ESRB rated the game appropriately and were not directly involved in it not hitting shelves.
This whole story is insane. Miyamoto's comment has been taken entirely out of context, in most cases.
It's quite obvious that he was simply trying to say that what he does is makes games HE thinks are fun; he doesn't look at what the population is finding fun at the time and copy that. Halo was used as an example purely because that's what the reporter said.
He wasn't trying to slam Bungie in any way. I mean, come on. Has he EVER slammed ANYONE?
It's not that Miyamoto was being mean, it's that Bungie was being oversensitive.
And the entire rest of your argument supported what I was saying.
What you were replying to ("doing the same thing over and over") was referencing graphics. The post I replied to stated that the only advancements in video games over the past 20 years were graphical, and I was commenting on how ridiculous that was.
I fully agree that advancements in gameplay have been made. That's what I want. I was arguing that graphics have an insanely low ranking in the lineup of things that make games worth playing.
...the ability to deliver more sophiscated graphics and high speed internet access have been key to allowing innovation to happen. No?Maybe you're confused. The entire rest of your comment was about gameplay innovation, and then you threw in graphics and internet. Which have little, if any, effect on gameplay.
Going from playing against someone on your couch to playing against someone on a couch a thousand miles away has nothing to do with gameplay at all. Sure, it's an innovation in that you can connect with other people, but, again, not gameplay.
Wrong. Pure wrong.
If graphics mean this much to you, I'd recommend walking outside. I hear the resolution is FANTASTIC.
Meanwhile, I'll be playing Space Invaders.
And so far as it being the only improvement over the last 20 years? Soo... Are you saying that innovation is worth nothing and, to keep making "better" consoles, we just need to keep doing the same thing over and over and over? Because that's pretty much EXACTLY wrong.
Um. Your argument essentially hinges on the fact that the most impressive Wii game is Wii Sports. That's a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?
Unless you are implying Super Paper Mario or Warioware are "inadequate imitations of what we can choose to do in real life." I don't know about you, but I can't flip to other dimensions (ala Paper Mario).
Nintendo ISN'T losing money on every console sold.
Maybe Sony and Microsoft need to take a look at the Wii's success and figure out that gamers don't want pretty graphics at outrageous prices. We want to have FUN.
There is absolutely nothing, in my mind, to justify paying $600 for a video game console. If I wanted ridiculous graphics, I'd go outside. I hear the resolution is FANTASTIC.
Let me preface this by pointing out the fact that I am 17.
I started out playing a SNES when I was five years old. I've never had more fun. The SNES was and continues to be my favorite game console.
Granted, I continue to buy new consoles and handhelds, but, fun though the Wii and DS may be, I really am not having as much fun as I was on the SNES, Genesis, and even the Playstation (not to mention old PC games like Starcraft and Diablo II). And Nintendo is the only company doing anything even CLOSE to beating those old systems.
I suppose the phrase "they just don't make 'em like they used to" applies here.
I was worried you had a good point right up until the DS note you threw in there.
If your DS is collecting dust, you clearly are not the sort of gamer Nintendo is catering to. If you are unable to appreciate titles like Phoenix Wright, Magical Starsign, Starfox: Assault, and New Super Mario Bros (to name a few), then maybe you should go get a PSP so you can watch some movies for a while.
Just a tad too late to be considered a Wintereenmas miracle.
One thing I feel should be noted is that in the Wii game Warioware: Smooth Moves, there is a game mode exclusively designed to give you a workout.
For anyone familiar with the actual game, it has microgames in which you have five seconds to perform some sort of action with the Wiimote.
Well, in "workout mode" (not the official name, by the way), you exclusively play games which require a lot of movement, and you play them longer than you would in normal gameplay.
They include moving your arms up and down like you're running, "pumping" the Wiimote up and down really fast like a barbell, and various other things.
If you go all-out on it, it really does tire you out, regardless of how fit you are. The Wii can be a great workout if used properly.
You mentioned some differences, but you left out that these features didn't cause the price of the Wii to go up at all.
And, as I've said before, if you disconnected your Wii from the internet, one could easily be unaware of their existance. Nintendo didn't shove them down our throats, like Sony always enjoys doing.
Wii: A gaming device with some extra, FREE (save for the browser, which is entirely optional), features.
PS3: Multimedia center on which, to be able to play the games, you MUST buy a movie player, an MP3 player, etc, etc.
Well that falls into what I said. You didn't buy a gaming system. (If you had been out to buy a gaming system, you wouldn't have wanted to waste cash on all the extras Sony likes shoving down our throats.) You bought a multimedia center. And you got exactly what you wanted.
In many other replies to my comment, I've seen it mentioned that the Wii can surf the web and show you weather and news. Well, this is true, but none of these caused the price to rise at all, and none of them are even mandatory. If you never updated your Wii, you could, theoretically, be completely unaware of their existance.
This is Sony's problem. They don't like "add-ons". They like to force things on everyone. Let's have a couple examples.
Nintendo meeting: "Hey, can we create something the user can use to read news from all around the world? That could be useful, we should get that out when we can!"
Sony meeting: "PEOPLE LOVE PLAYING MOVIES. THEY WILL LIKE IT ON THE PS3. BECAUSE WE SAY THEY WILL."
I mean, think of it. You would've been just about as happy to buy a PS3 for much, much less money, and then buy the add-ons, right? But the people who DON'T want those attachments are completely screwed.
Because all of those features shipped right alone with it, right?
Oh, wait, Nintendo was focusing on games and giving players the option to download those extra features later.
If you want to get specific, yes, the Wii web browser will cost money. If you choose to buy it. Personally, I won't.
The difference between Nintendo and Sony is that Sony develops these HARDWARE features (a bit different than downloading some software), causing the price of their system to skyrocket, and forces you to pay for these features.
When I bought my Wii, I bought a game system. If you disconnected your Wii from the internet (or simply didn't update it), you would not have the feature to see news or weather at all.
The Wii is selling like hotcakes and the PS3 is already requiring a price drop.
Anyone else betting that Sony learns nothing from this?
They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.
Badmouthing the competition may be commonplace, but Sony does it to the extent of simply making themselves look horrible. You'd think they'd learn when to quit.
Back in the DS/PSP launch days, all you heard were articles about Sony predicting how much better the PSP would do than the DS... All the while, Nintendo kept releasing statements saying they were not in direct competition with Sony, and that each company had a different strategy. (Which is true. Nintendo was releasing a game console. Sony was releasing a movie player/MP3 player/image viewer/dishwasher which also happened to be able to play games.)
If I had to pick one reason I didn't like Sony, it'd be their arrogance and inability to shut up.
Exactly what I was thinking when I wrote this. Nintendo is essentially the one company still trying to be innovative in the industry, and they're not going anywhere soon. (Nexgenwars.com, anyone?)
Also, I argue the older gamers are really the only true ones, anymore.
"Hard-core" gamers have become mindless Sony drones, Grand Theft Autoing into eternity. For these people, these are the required components for a game to be fun: The best graphics ever, blood, sex of some kind (women with large breasts, etc.), and an M or higher rating. In my opinion, this is not being a gamer at all.
Going back to what I said about older gamers... You cannot truly appreciate FUN games unless you started out on, say, the SNES or Sega Genesis (or older). In those days, games were purely about having fun. Graphics was not even an issue.
And I use the SNES as an example there simply to lead into the fact that this is still Nintendo's philosophy. While we have Sony badmouthing its competition and developing $600 console powerhouses, Nintendo is in their little corner seeing what they can do to actually make things more fun.
And this is what the gaming industry needs. If I wanted to WATCH a game (stare at pretty graphics), I'd have bought a DVD instead of a video game.
Seriously?
Who will even care at that point? The PS4 (which will likely be the name, since Sony is so original with that type of thing) will be out around that time, and the PS3 will be ancient history.
If it takes them that long to pull ahead, I'd say they've lost this generation.
People derogatively calling DS and Wii "gimmicks" is really getting old.
Let's take a look, here.
(From Dictionary.com) Gimmick: an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
I can't really see how that is a bad thing.
Furthermore, that basically says that anything designed to attract attention is a gimmick. Sooo... Let's say the sleek, black design of the PS3. I bet that was designed to attract attention. OH MY GOD IT'S A GIMMICK.
Seriously. It's getting old.
Those are eerily accurate reviews. And reviews are something I rarely agree with. Elebits is definitely worth a rent, if not a buy. I do plan on purchasing it at some point (I argue that it does have some "pick up and play again" type of replay value, because it is a really fun game to mess with, not to mention that you can create your own levels), but other games keep pushing it back on the "next to buy" list. Warioware is clearly a buy. No doubt. If only for how intense it is. When you first start your single-player campaign, you begin with a nice little cutscene... And then suddenly burst into nine rapid-fire minigames. It reminded me so much of the first "PRESS A" cutscene in Resident Evil 4 (which did end up getting me killed once, I will admit), I can't even describe. Plus, as the article says, going back through single-player is definitely worth it. You go back through a "level" and you just keep doing minigames (which come at you faster and faster the farther you progress) until you fail four times. It simply gets hilarious nearing the end, when you can hardly keep up with anything at all. Bottom line: Both are good. Renting Elebits before buying it is a good plan, but would only be a waste of cash with Warioware.