"Backward compability in most cases works by simply keeping the old console around in addition to the new stuff, not by not switching the architecture" Keeping the old stuff around is, by definition, not completely switching the architechture. The wii has gamecube parts, plus new stuff, just like the GBA has gameboy parts, plus new stuff.
"...when you are a gamer it comes down to games and nothing else" That right there is a sad misinterpretation of the truth. Too many gamers have too much respect for hardware, and the games themselves mean very little. Look at the pre-release hype that surrounded the PS3. It wasn't about MGS4 or the next Final Fantasy. It was about the unprecedented graphics and hardware. If it was all about the games, we'd see more innovation, and less recycling of formulas that worked well before. When I said it was about market share, I meant from a business standpoint, i.e. to Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.
The simple fact that the PS3 and X360 have some form of backward compatibility means the architechture ISNT completely new. It's common sense. Yeah, the wii has backward compatibility too, but they don't aim their marketing campaign at tech-savvy people who care about hardware as much as you do. The PS3 took that one. Nintendo aimed for the largely untapped market: people who don't play video games. A risky move, but considering that the wii is damn near all gimmick, it's not unreasonable to say theyre seeing some surprising success from it. Nintendo undeniably raised some eyebrows, and people can say whatever they want about the hardware, but it all comes down to market share, and the wii got enough attention that demand skyrocketed. I have a wii and and X360, and I love gears of war as much as the next guy. But even though the graphics of the wii are sub-360 level, the control style is refreshing. Halo 3 and Halo 2 are pretty damn similar, but metroid prime 3 is completely different from Metroid Prime 2. Halo 3=Halo 2 with new weapons, vehicles, etc. Metroid Prime 3=Metroid Prime 2 with new weaps and such, but with new controls. I like Halo, dont get me wrong, but I like having a break from the same old dual analog formula.
I'm guessing we'd have a new debate on our hands. But it'd still feel the same. We'd have the reasonable public opinion, and then we'd have a few nutjobs with no common sense arguing the exact opposite. The only difference is the mass amount of interest. Instead of just gamers caring what people say, its all the men and some of the women. more public interest, more hatemail for the nutjobs. I like it.
...this means nothing. The game industry is a subset of the US economy. (partially) This means that it balances out with industries that arent doing so well. (housing, for instance) Consider it like this: If we take the average of five numbers: 3,4,5,6,7 average is 5 if we raise one number (the 4), we have: 3,5,5,6,7 the average is now 5.2 one number went up 25% the average went up 4% if the trend continues, but a different number (the 5) goes down, but half as fast, then we still have a net increase, but the number that started as 4 has a much higher rate of increase.
As cool as this is, I don't see it being useful anywhere for one simple reason: if the wiimote is up on the tv, you don't get buttons. Wonderful for pointing at stuff, or even just for kicks and giggles, but you couldnt even make a mii with this hack.
By basing it on states won, we say that a small state (Rhode Island, for instance) is equally important, on the whole, to the vote as a big state (Cali?). This seems great, but then we look at the fact that the population of Tiny State is say, 3 units of population, and Big State has, say, 12 units. (I don't know population statistics, but Rhode Island has way fewer people than Cali.) We say that: 3 units of people = 12 units of people because: 1 state = 1 state. By calling Bigstate and Smallstate equal points to each state being a separate entity. Not necessarily wrong, but the UNITED States is meant to be based on raw people, not geographic regions. The problem is that, inevitably, candidates campaign in Bigstate so they get the 12 units. Smallstate is better in a state-votes system: Fewer people, same number of votes. Bigstate is better in a people-votes system: same travel, more votes. We, as voters, are forced to hope that whichever system we use will bypass these shortcuts and work as it should on paper. What all this means is that either way (state-votes or people-votes) there are shortcuts. Fixing the system is either eliminating the shortcuts, or finding a system without them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Backward compability in most cases works by simply keeping the old console around in addition to the new stuff, not by not switching the architecture"
Keeping the old stuff around is, by definition, not completely switching the architechture. The wii has gamecube parts, plus new stuff, just like the GBA has gameboy parts, plus new stuff.
"...when you are a gamer it comes down to games and nothing else"
That right there is a sad misinterpretation of the truth. Too many gamers have too much respect for hardware, and the games themselves mean very little. Look at the pre-release hype that surrounded the PS3. It wasn't about MGS4 or the next Final Fantasy. It was about the unprecedented graphics and hardware. If it was all about the games, we'd see more innovation, and less recycling of formulas that worked well before. When I said it was about market share, I meant from a business standpoint, i.e. to Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.
The simple fact that the PS3 and X360 have some form of backward compatibility means the architechture ISNT completely new. It's common sense. Yeah, the wii has backward compatibility too, but they don't aim their marketing campaign at tech-savvy people who care about hardware as much as you do. The PS3 took that one. Nintendo aimed for the largely untapped market: people who don't play video games. A risky move, but considering that the wii is damn near all gimmick, it's not unreasonable to say theyre seeing some surprising success from it. Nintendo undeniably raised some eyebrows, and people can say whatever they want about the hardware, but it all comes down to market share, and the wii got enough attention that demand skyrocketed. I have a wii and and X360, and I love gears of war as much as the next guy. But even though the graphics of the wii are sub-360 level, the control style is refreshing. Halo 3 and Halo 2 are pretty damn similar, but metroid prime 3 is completely different from Metroid Prime 2. Halo 3=Halo 2 with new weapons, vehicles, etc. Metroid Prime 3=Metroid Prime 2 with new weaps and such, but with new controls. I like Halo, dont get me wrong, but I like having a break from the same old dual analog formula.
I'm guessing we'd have a new debate on our hands. But it'd still feel the same. We'd have the reasonable public opinion, and then we'd have a few nutjobs with no common sense arguing the exact opposite. The only difference is the mass amount of interest. Instead of just gamers caring what people say, its all the men and some of the women. more public interest, more hatemail for the nutjobs. I like it.
...this means nothing. The game industry is a subset of the US economy. (partially) This means that it balances out with industries that arent doing so well. (housing, for instance) Consider it like this:
If we take the average of five numbers: 3,4,5,6,7
average is 5
if we raise one number (the 4), we have: 3,5,5,6,7
the average is now 5.2
one number went up 25%
the average went up 4%
if the trend continues, but a different number (the 5) goes down, but half as fast, then we still have a net increase, but the number that started as 4 has a much higher rate of increase.
10 bucks on Microsoft!
As cool as this is, I don't see it being useful anywhere for one simple reason: if the wiimote is up on the tv, you don't get buttons. Wonderful for pointing at stuff, or even just for kicks and giggles, but you couldnt even make a mii with this hack.
By basing it on states won, we say that a small state (Rhode Island, for instance) is equally important, on the whole, to the vote as a big state (Cali?). This seems great, but then we look at the fact that the population of Tiny State is say, 3 units of population, and Big State has, say, 12 units.
(I don't know population statistics, but Rhode Island has way fewer people than Cali.)
We say that:
3 units of people = 12 units of people
because:
1 state = 1 state.
By calling Bigstate and Smallstate equal points to each state being a separate entity. Not necessarily wrong, but the UNITED States is meant to be based on raw people, not geographic regions. The problem is that, inevitably, candidates campaign in Bigstate so they get the 12 units. Smallstate is better in a state-votes system: Fewer people, same number of votes. Bigstate is better in a people-votes system: same travel, more votes. We, as voters, are forced to hope that whichever system we use will bypass these shortcuts and work as it should on paper. What all this means is that either way (state-votes or people-votes) there are shortcuts. Fixing the system is either eliminating the shortcuts, or finding a system without them.