Your disappointment stems directly from assuming this video is a trailer -- it's not. It's a TEASER, which is why it skimps on everything. There's just enough there to entice you and leave you wanting more... unless, of course, you were expecting a full trailer or demo. In that case, you're left limper than a wet noodle.
Oh, one more thing -- everything shown in the teaser IS in-game graphics. Duke, liztroops, octabrain, pigcop... all in-game. If you want a closer look, I suggest downloading the HD version of the teaser and scrolling through it at a slow pace.
I've done all the explaining I can be bothered with doing, but apparently you're just not getting it. For the record, I never said you shouldn't ever cry about the camera in MG, but good GOD son, did you forget the 99.9% of the time when everything works flawlessly? Just like nobody wants to hear you bitch about how bad your day was or what happened to you at the office, nobody wants to hear you bitch about it when you find some insignificant problem in a game. Plus, when you do bitch about it, you make it sound like a bigger problem than it is.
So, sorry if your pussy is hurt over being attacked by "rabid, frothing fanboys" [read: the voice of reason], but that's what you get when you whine about something stupid. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to mod your relative post score down so I don't have to read any more of your 'brilliant insight'.
Again, you fail to truly grasp my point, and acting like a pompous asshole isn't helping your cause. If someone dislikes the camera in MG, I couldn't care less. However, if their reasoning behind their opinion is based on false information or something as absurdly insignificant as your issue, then I just don't see that opinion as justified and therefore must view it as invalid. So please, stop making the issue out to be more than it is. Nobody really cares that the camera in MG can be problematic at times, because it happens so infrequently and is hardly bothersome.
Haha it's cool man, you're full of excrement and yourself so do us all a favor and jump off a bridge! You can't get it through your thick skull that I'm not talking about your opinion being an opinion... so I guess I'd be better off talking to a brick wall.
Haha, but you misunderstand. I'm not saying that that's your opinion... I'm saying it's wrong. Quoting 5 reviews that happen to all mention a problem with the camera isn't very convincing at all. In addition, any problems with the camera are so slight that it just doesn't justify complaining about it. Sorry.:)
I also included quotes from 5 reviews which also proves that there are reviews out there that talk specifically about it - you said none of them did this.
Actually, I said none of the ones that I read mentioned a problem with the camera and that one even boasted about the game's "scary-smart" camera.
no matter how you try to spin it, someone's opinion can't be wrong and therefore, by definition, can't be ignorant because of it. this English lesson provided free of charge!
But if someone said they disliked a certain ice cream because of the color, they'd be ignorant since you eat ice cream for the taste. Unless someone picked foods based on their color, but that would make them a huge weirdo ^^.
Thanks for inadvertently proving my point. If these nega-reviews point out the negatives in games that receive "very high scores", then obviously they are nothing more than nitpickings... hence the reason I called you ignorant. 99.9% of the time, the camera in MG is right on the mark. I believe you're making the problems you've had with the camera out to sound much, much more troublesome and frequent than they are, which is ignoring the large majority of the time that the camera is spot on -- that comes across as ignorant to me. Plus, looking at the cameras from previous Mario titles, this one is in a league of its own.
So, if you don't like ice cream and I do, but you dislike it because of the color, I'd say that's ignorant... maybe.
Yes, I can and will deduce that you are ignorant if your opinion is one which is ignorant. I've already read several reviews of the game and none of them have mentioned any problems with the camera. The biggest complaint I read about in a review was the presentation of the story via the storybook. Hell, a couple of the reviews even praised the "scary-smart camera". I can't take the issue you have with the camera as being serious because my play-through of the game rarely presented a problem with the camera, and during the times there was a problem I could always rotate the camera to a better position.
This is by far the best camera any Mario game has had and any issues with it are no more than nitpickings. Perhaps you did have a rough time with the camera -- if so, I'd chalk that up to bad luck. At any rate, your bad experience with the camera is probably a rarity. You and parent are honestly the first people I've seen complain about the camera, which just boggles my mind because of how great the camera really is.
You and parent are both either ignorant fools or blatant liars if you claim to have found the camera in MG to be problematic. It's rare to find a spot where the camera is in a bad position, but you can always rotate it to a good one if need be.
...why I don't own a cell phone. I guess the most relevant reason for me not having one is my lack of a job, but hey, I had a cell for awhile and it drove me absolutely batshit insane. It's nice to be able to contact anyone at any time (assuming you have a signal), but it sure as hell is annoying when your phone rings every 10 minutes.
I'm not absolutely positive, but if you can use the classic controller you should also be able to use the GCN controller. A lot of the N64 games for virtual console say "classic controller required" or something similar, but the GCN controller works just fine. I don't think they would disallow use of a controller that has already proven itself to be perfectly suited for Smash matches.
Sadly, that's a question that many gamers today overlook. Graphics are the forefront of most people's concern, and this allows giant companies like Microsoft and Sony to squeeze out turds and sell them like hotcakes. Yes, those turds may look pretty, but they're still turds. Comics have been facing a similar issue for awhile -- many comics artists revolve their comic around the art rather than compelling content.
The bottom line is, games are intended to entertain. If a game was made with the purpose of looking pretty (as so many today are, with some regurgitated gameplay thrown in afterward), then why doesn't it allow you to just control a free-floating camera so you can appreciate the fine details up close and far away? I'm guessing that it's because the developers knew a lot of schmucks would fall victim to the advertising of pretty visuals, since they're much easier to depict in a commercial than fun gameplay (and besides, coming up with and implementing great gameplay involves more work than making pretty graphics). Alas, we can only hope that these schmucks realize how bored they are in a few years when they play Halo 6 which, if it ever exists, will probably have the same gameplay as all the others in addition to a few more gimmicks.
Oh, you don't understand Quake II? I guess you never read the manual or sat through the opening cutscene then. Quake II didn't need a protagonist you could relate to or some girl to save; this isn't Mario. Basically the scene is set up just enough for you to know what's going on and what your mission is, and then the focus is on the gameplay. Earth is at war with the Strogg and they've launched a counter-attack on their home planet, but instead they get ambushed and you happen to be lucky enough to make it there alive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_II). Sounds about as simple as the Doom storyline.
And another thing -- for you to praise Q3A for succeeding in its "purpose" of being multiplayer is just totally irrational when you consider the fact that Quake II had a massive online player base and the multiplayer game modes are practically all the same, not to mention the myriad of mods that were developed for it.
You make some good points, but I think you're overlooking a couple important things.
First of all, I really doubt that the intention of this game is to completely replace a chemistry class, much less a high school chemistry class; after all, this is a 13-year-old still in middle school. I think the intention of this game is to get kids interested in chemistry and teach them the basics (regardless of how basic it may be) without alienating them from the subject.
Secondly, it's understandably easy for anyone who sees "13-year-old CEO" to start hurling criticisms and nitpickings. If you just put those aside for a moment though and look at what's been produced, you'll see that the game really could be beneficial to kids that played it. Sure, they're not going to learn about acid-bases or gas laws or this and that, but that clearly wasn't the point of the game. It is what it is and it certainly has the potential to teach kids chemistry, perhaps even instilling a fondness of the subject in many of those who play (and ideally I suppose they would register for chemistry classes and enjoy learning the subject in much more detail). After all, things are apt to stick better in your memory once you associate them with something and, since a ton of kids love games, this may just be a great way for them to learn.
Yet again, another "controversy" where the comment that starts it all is taken completely out of context. Here's the question Miyamoto was asked taken from the original article (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037961,00.html) :
You mentioned social issues in Japan. But games are a global business -- and the youth of America have a host of unique issues in front of them. The reason I mention this is that one criticism of Nintendo's games is that they are very Japanese-centric. American gamers have bought more copies of Halo than they did of Metroid, for instance. Do you ever worry that you're losing touch with what young American players might want to play?
Obviously, looking at that question, it's no wonder he replied the way he did. He wasn't putting down Halo, he was trying to explain why he designs games the way he does. The very next question he's asked:
Some game companies in America don't think like that. They are mostly risk- averse, producing sequels and franchise extensions, rather than exploring new ideas. There is a lot of emphasis on market research and focus groups. Does that hurt the games business?
Miyamoto's response?
With rising budgets, I understand why game companies have a great deal of concern if they don't design games in this way. But you need to create what you want to create! In that sense, I would really like to see people develop games like I do...
So you can see that Miyamoto's intentions weren't bad; rather than following the American flow, he creates what he wants to create. Let's look at O'Connor's side of the story! What was O'Connor asked?
One final question: last week, Shigeru Miyamoto said in an interview with Geoff Keighley in Entertainment Weekly that he could make Halo.
Hmm.. that sure seemed to leave out a lot of information! O'Connor's sitting there thinking that Miyamoto was challenging his game-creating abilities, downplaying the difficulty of creating Halo, or something else stupid like that, when in reality it's just some brown-nosed interviewer trying to get a good response for his story. Sickening, I know. I just get pissed when the media tries to create controversy where there really is none.
I get so sick of reading these Wii-bashing articles. The only complaints they ever present are "wahhh graphics" or "wahhh processing power." The moron in this article even complains about Wii not being able to play DVDs. COME ON! Who doesn't have a freakin' DVD player by now? Obviously, people like this haven't sat down and considered why Nintendo is doing so well... I guess they are just too caught up in trying to downplay Nintendo's success. Psssst, idiots. Graphics don't make a game fun.
God, just reading this first excerpt makes me ill.
It's a very nice product, but it actually has a relatively specific audience and a fairly specific appeal, frankly, based on one feature, which is the controller itself. And the rest of the product is actually not a great product--no disrespect, but...the video graphics on it aren't very strong; the box itself is kind of underpowered; it doesn't play DVDs; there are a lot of down-line components [that] aren't actually that interesting.
Soooo... basically he comes out and says it's a nice product for a very SPECIFIC audience? For a system that's supposed to have universal appeal? Mmmmk. Then he contradicts himself by saying the product "is actually not a great product." Mmmmk. And what entails his reasoning? Graphics, processing, and lack of DVD-playing capability... oh, and "a lot of down-line components." Lawl!
Hey, Robbie! Keep fighting your fight, bro. One day you'll wonder why your market share slowly reduced itself to zero. Until then, enjoy your imaginary high horse.
Nice rebuttal, HappySqurriel. I'm so sick of these fucking prepubescent fanboys trashtalking Nintendo just because they didn't follow the trend in gamemaking to enhance graphics and processing power. Guess what, fellas? Videogaming itself was based on creativity! In the early days of gaming, there was a new genre out practically every month. A NEW GENRE. Not "another new FPS" or "yet another WWII sim" or "a brand new RTS!", but an entirely new genre. I guess at some point it became, for lack of a better word, overwhelming and with the advent of more powerful systems and better graphics, companies started relying on old, proven success formulas to make money and the same crap kept getting regurgitated over and over. Nintendo is really the only company that's been successful at doing innovative things and they've been trying to do so practically their entire company life. The most recent systems that exemplify this are the DS and the Wii, both of which open myriad new doors for creativity and, hopefully, new game genres.
It's funny -- in the early days when graphics weren't really an issue, gameplay was all you could worry about. This caused developers to HAVE to be creative. The same thing goes with 8-bit music. With only 4 channels to work with, composers had to be very clever if they wanted to make some great music, and many did. Now that all these gaming giants are so caught up in making their games look pretty, creativity has sort of been pushed off to the side. However, the consumers who don't have their heads up their asses realize this, and they are desperate for something new and fresh. If these gaming giants weren't so concerned with making a quick buck, maybe they'd realize that their best bet for making money is to take a leap of faith by being creative and original. FFS!
People will get tired of the Wii's one-trick-pony and Furby-inspired "marketing" campaign soon enough, about the same time they realize that plugging a system into their HDTV that actually looks good improves their enjoyment of rehashed game ideas more than a repetitive strain inducing controller.
Get fucking real, buddy. If you want realistic graphics, leave your parents' basement for the first time in 30 years and take a look outside. It's called real life. You can keep believing that graphics are what make a game good if you want, but the rest of us realize that gameplay and creativity are the basis for a fun gaming experience. Oh... and as for your "strain-inducing controller" comment? Not really sure how to break this to you, but maybe you should be more active. You sound like the fatass couch potato type whose sofa has two ass imprints on it -- one cheek for each cushion.
People like this man right here disgust me. Clearly, he has no idea what he's talking about. Of the three big consoles, Nintendo's Wii is by far the one that really pushes developers to be artistic. How can you possibly argue this:
Hecker ended his spirited rant with two demands for Nintendo: First, recognize and push games as serious art. And two, "make a console that doesn't suck ass."
Just look at Nintendo's staple franchises! Almost every single game they release is one of the most fun and polished you can find for any platform and on top of that, each one does something fresh and innovative.
Now, when will they start making developers that don't suck ass...
I was actually enjoying this article until the author made mention of a quest in FFXII he considered to be time-consuming.
From the article:
I just played Final Fantasy XII, for the PlayStation 2 - an entirely worthy role-playing game. And, by turning the combat speed to maximum and skipping all optional quests, I managed to win it in only 47 hours. There was one quest in it that finally broke my spirit.
You have to find this secret door into this castle. Fair enough. And you find out how from this guy in the sewers who sounds like Apu from the Simpsons, but a grumpy old man.
He knows how to open the hidden door into the castle. But does he give you a key? Or just, Heaven forbid, open it for you? No. He says, "To get into the castle, you must first get a darkened sunstone. Then you need to fill it with sun energy. By wandering the lands to the south, and searching for the four shadestones. Then you fill the crystal with sun energy. Then you..."
SHUT UP! I don't want to spend hours wandering and killing wolves and for the shadestones, whatever those are, to open a door. It doesn't make any sense! Just open the door for me, you creepy old Apu-sounding FREAK!
Finding the shadestones and charging the sunstone took 90 minutes. Sorry, Vogel, but if it took you 90 minutes to finish this quest, which is near the beginning of the game, you might want to consider a catscan. This quest, honestly, is almost too easy. You don't even have to fight any monsters. I have to agree that RPGs do essentially waste a lot of players' time today (MMOs especially), but it's just absurd for someone to make this claim. That'd be like saying, "it took me 2 hours to finish the tutorial!" This article should've been named, "Why Lying Authors Waste Your Time".
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't a trailer, it's a teaser. That's why it's only like a minute long.
Your disappointment stems directly from assuming this video is a trailer -- it's not. It's a TEASER, which is why it skimps on everything. There's just enough there to entice you and leave you wanting more... unless, of course, you were expecting a full trailer or demo. In that case, you're left limper than a wet noodle.
Oh, one more thing -- everything shown in the teaser IS in-game graphics. Duke, liztroops, octabrain, pigcop... all in-game. If you want a closer look, I suggest downloading the HD version of the teaser and scrolling through it at a slow pace.
I've done all the explaining I can be bothered with doing, but apparently you're just not getting it. For the record, I never said you shouldn't ever cry about the camera in MG, but good GOD son, did you forget the 99.9% of the time when everything works flawlessly? Just like nobody wants to hear you bitch about how bad your day was or what happened to you at the office, nobody wants to hear you bitch about it when you find some insignificant problem in a game. Plus, when you do bitch about it, you make it sound like a bigger problem than it is.
So, sorry if your pussy is hurt over being attacked by "rabid, frothing fanboys" [read: the voice of reason], but that's what you get when you whine about something stupid. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to mod your relative post score down so I don't have to read any more of your 'brilliant insight'.
Yeah, I did. Are you even understanding what I'm saying? Maybe I already am talking to a brick wall...
Again, you fail to truly grasp my point, and acting like a pompous asshole isn't helping your cause. If someone dislikes the camera in MG, I couldn't care less. However, if their reasoning behind their opinion is based on false information or something as absurdly insignificant as your issue, then I just don't see that opinion as justified and therefore must view it as invalid. So please, stop making the issue out to be more than it is. Nobody really cares that the camera in MG can be problematic at times, because it happens so infrequently and is hardly bothersome.
Haha it's cool man, you're full of excrement and yourself so do us all a favor and jump off a bridge! You can't get it through your thick skull that I'm not talking about your opinion being an opinion... so I guess I'd be better off talking to a brick wall.
Haha, but you misunderstand. I'm not saying that that's your opinion... I'm saying it's wrong. Quoting 5 reviews that happen to all mention a problem with the camera isn't very convincing at all. In addition, any problems with the camera are so slight that it just doesn't justify complaining about it. Sorry. :)
I also included quotes from 5 reviews which also proves that there are reviews out there that talk specifically about it - you said none of them did this.Actually, I said none of the ones that I read mentioned a problem with the camera and that one even boasted about the game's "scary-smart" camera.
no matter how you try to spin it, someone's opinion can't be wrong and therefore, by definition, can't be ignorant because of it. this English lesson provided free of charge!But if someone said they disliked a certain ice cream because of the color, they'd be ignorant since you eat ice cream for the taste. Unless someone picked foods based on their color, but that would make them a huge weirdo ^^.
Thanks for inadvertently proving my point. If these nega-reviews point out the negatives in games that receive "very high scores", then obviously they are nothing more than nitpickings... hence the reason I called you ignorant. 99.9% of the time, the camera in MG is right on the mark. I believe you're making the problems you've had with the camera out to sound much, much more troublesome and frequent than they are, which is ignoring the large majority of the time that the camera is spot on -- that comes across as ignorant to me. Plus, looking at the cameras from previous Mario titles, this one is in a league of its own.
So, if you don't like ice cream and I do, but you dislike it because of the color, I'd say that's ignorant... maybe.
Yes, I can and will deduce that you are ignorant if your opinion is one which is ignorant. I've already read several reviews of the game and none of them have mentioned any problems with the camera. The biggest complaint I read about in a review was the presentation of the story via the storybook. Hell, a couple of the reviews even praised the "scary-smart camera". I can't take the issue you have with the camera as being serious because my play-through of the game rarely presented a problem with the camera, and during the times there was a problem I could always rotate the camera to a better position.
This is by far the best camera any Mario game has had and any issues with it are no more than nitpickings. Perhaps you did have a rough time with the camera -- if so, I'd chalk that up to bad luck. At any rate, your bad experience with the camera is probably a rarity. You and parent are honestly the first people I've seen complain about the camera, which just boggles my mind because of how great the camera really is.
You and parent are both either ignorant fools or blatant liars if you claim to have found the camera in MG to be problematic. It's rare to find a spot where the camera is in a bad position, but you can always rotate it to a good one if need be.
...why I don't own a cell phone. I guess the most relevant reason for me not having one is my lack of a job, but hey, I had a cell for awhile and it drove me absolutely batshit insane. It's nice to be able to contact anyone at any time (assuming you have a signal), but it sure as hell is annoying when your phone rings every 10 minutes.
I'm not absolutely positive, but if you can use the classic controller you should also be able to use the GCN controller. A lot of the N64 games for virtual console say "classic controller required" or something similar, but the GCN controller works just fine. I don't think they would disallow use of a controller that has already proven itself to be perfectly suited for Smash matches.
I have to agree with you. Youtube is terrible and their new filtering system is only going to lower the amount of traffic that visits their site.
Sadly, that's a question that many gamers today overlook. Graphics are the forefront of most people's concern, and this allows giant companies like Microsoft and Sony to squeeze out turds and sell them like hotcakes. Yes, those turds may look pretty, but they're still turds. Comics have been facing a similar issue for awhile -- many comics artists revolve their comic around the art rather than compelling content.
The bottom line is, games are intended to entertain. If a game was made with the purpose of looking pretty (as so many today are, with some regurgitated gameplay thrown in afterward), then why doesn't it allow you to just control a free-floating camera so you can appreciate the fine details up close and far away? I'm guessing that it's because the developers knew a lot of schmucks would fall victim to the advertising of pretty visuals, since they're much easier to depict in a commercial than fun gameplay (and besides, coming up with and implementing great gameplay involves more work than making pretty graphics). Alas, we can only hope that these schmucks realize how bored they are in a few years when they play Halo 6 which, if it ever exists, will probably have the same gameplay as all the others in addition to a few more gimmicks.
Oh, you don't understand Quake II? I guess you never read the manual or sat through the opening cutscene then. Quake II didn't need a protagonist you could relate to or some girl to save; this isn't Mario. Basically the scene is set up just enough for you to know what's going on and what your mission is, and then the focus is on the gameplay. Earth is at war with the Strogg and they've launched a counter-attack on their home planet, but instead they get ambushed and you happen to be lucky enough to make it there alive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_II). Sounds about as simple as the Doom storyline.
And another thing -- for you to praise Q3A for succeeding in its "purpose" of being multiplayer is just totally irrational when you consider the fact that Quake II had a massive online player base and the multiplayer game modes are practically all the same, not to mention the myriad of mods that were developed for it.
You make some good points, but I think you're overlooking a couple important things.
First of all, I really doubt that the intention of this game is to completely replace a chemistry class, much less a high school chemistry class; after all, this is a 13-year-old still in middle school. I think the intention of this game is to get kids interested in chemistry and teach them the basics (regardless of how basic it may be) without alienating them from the subject.
Secondly, it's understandably easy for anyone who sees "13-year-old CEO" to start hurling criticisms and nitpickings. If you just put those aside for a moment though and look at what's been produced, you'll see that the game really could be beneficial to kids that played it. Sure, they're not going to learn about acid-bases or gas laws or this and that, but that clearly wasn't the point of the game. It is what it is and it certainly has the potential to teach kids chemistry, perhaps even instilling a fondness of the subject in many of those who play (and ideally I suppose they would register for chemistry classes and enjoy learning the subject in much more detail). After all, things are apt to stick better in your memory once you associate them with something and, since a ton of kids love games, this may just be a great way for them to learn.
Yet again, another "controversy" where the comment that starts it all is taken completely out of context. Here's the question Miyamoto was asked taken from the original article (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037961,00.html) :
Obviously, looking at that question, it's no wonder he replied the way he did. He wasn't putting down Halo, he was trying to explain why he designs games the way he does. The very next question he's asked:
Miyamoto's response?
So you can see that Miyamoto's intentions weren't bad; rather than following the American flow, he creates what he wants to create. Let's look at O'Connor's side of the story! What was O'Connor asked?
Hmm.. that sure seemed to leave out a lot of information! O'Connor's sitting there thinking that Miyamoto was challenging his game-creating abilities, downplaying the difficulty of creating Halo, or something else stupid like that, when in reality it's just some brown-nosed interviewer trying to get a good response for his story. Sickening, I know. I just get pissed when the media tries to create controversy where there really is none.
You're an absolute moron. Just thought I'd let you know.
I get so sick of reading these Wii-bashing articles. The only complaints they ever present are "wahhh graphics" or "wahhh processing power." The moron in this article even complains about Wii not being able to play DVDs. COME ON! Who doesn't have a freakin' DVD player by now? Obviously, people like this haven't sat down and considered why Nintendo is doing so well... I guess they are just too caught up in trying to downplay Nintendo's success. Psssst, idiots. Graphics don't make a game fun.
God, just reading this first excerpt makes me ill.
Soooo... basically he comes out and says it's a nice product for a very SPECIFIC audience? For a system that's supposed to have universal appeal? Mmmmk. Then he contradicts himself by saying the product "is actually not a great product." Mmmmk. And what entails his reasoning? Graphics, processing, and lack of DVD-playing capability... oh, and "a lot of down-line components." Lawl!
Hey, Robbie! Keep fighting your fight, bro. One day you'll wonder why your market share slowly reduced itself to zero. Until then, enjoy your imaginary high horse.
Nice rebuttal, HappySqurriel. I'm so sick of these fucking prepubescent fanboys trashtalking Nintendo just because they didn't follow the trend in gamemaking to enhance graphics and processing power. Guess what, fellas? Videogaming itself was based on creativity! In the early days of gaming, there was a new genre out practically every month. A NEW GENRE. Not "another new FPS" or "yet another WWII sim" or "a brand new RTS!", but an entirely new genre. I guess at some point it became, for lack of a better word, overwhelming and with the advent of more powerful systems and better graphics, companies started relying on old, proven success formulas to make money and the same crap kept getting regurgitated over and over. Nintendo is really the only company that's been successful at doing innovative things and they've been trying to do so practically their entire company life. The most recent systems that exemplify this are the DS and the Wii, both of which open myriad new doors for creativity and, hopefully, new game genres.
It's funny -- in the early days when graphics weren't really an issue, gameplay was all you could worry about. This caused developers to HAVE to be creative. The same thing goes with 8-bit music. With only 4 channels to work with, composers had to be very clever if they wanted to make some great music, and many did. Now that all these gaming giants are so caught up in making their games look pretty, creativity has sort of been pushed off to the side. However, the consumers who don't have their heads up their asses realize this, and they are desperate for something new and fresh. If these gaming giants weren't so concerned with making a quick buck, maybe they'd realize that their best bet for making money is to take a leap of faith by being creative and original. FFS!
Get fucking real, buddy. If you want realistic graphics, leave your parents' basement for the first time in 30 years and take a look outside. It's called real life. You can keep believing that graphics are what make a game good if you want, but the rest of us realize that gameplay and creativity are the basis for a fun gaming experience. Oh... and as for your "strain-inducing controller" comment? Not really sure how to break this to you, but maybe you should be more active. You sound like the fatass couch potato type whose sofa has two ass imprints on it -- one cheek for each cushion.