I wish I had known about this while the promotion was going on. I downloaded this on a whim after reading a preview, knowing that classic puzzle games like Tetris were always among my favorites, and I knew it would be worth $15.00 (1500 WiiWare points).
I loved it so much that I not only paid an additional $20 (plus tax) to purchase the Windows PC version, just to play it with a mouse (it's more fun on the Wii, but the mouse allows much better control), but I bought two more copies to share with two friends, who loved it just as much. It's a shame I missed this promotion, because I would have told dozens more to pay whatever they thought was fair to get the game for themselves.
Here's my quick review... The gameplay is simple but addictive. It's easy to learn, and the skills are easy to master as you progress through the game. But it's never too easy, and some levels require quite a bit of outside-the-box thinking. And the game is even spiked with the sarcasm of the "sign painter," who leaves vague clues around each level should you need them. (Forget needing them -- each and every sign is a joy to read, and it's worth beating each level just to get to the next bit of witty advice.)
To me, this is the 21st century thinking-man's Tetris. It's a shame that it will never be as popular as Tetris, because it really should be.
Due to licensing issues, this may never happen for a Wii Sports title. However, you might be interested in the Tiger Woods Golf series. It's probably a bit more pricey than you'd like and a bit more difficult than Wii Golf, but it features a few well known courses.
Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are fun to this day, and their graphics by today's standards are terrible. The graphics don't have to be next-gen or hyper-realistic. There is only one crucial element: gameplay. If it's done well -- if it's fun to play the first time and gamers have a reason to keep coming back -- then yes, there is a future for mature gaming on the Wii.
Unfortunately, I think it's going to take a babysteps approach, because Nintendo's current fanbase seems to be mostly casual gamers and the family-friendly types. Anyone not in that category who has a Wii is probably a loyal fan, so Nintendo doesn't need to focus on them -- those fans will find the games they want either way.
I believe Wisconsin internet vendors can only tax Wisconsin buyers. Out-of-state taxation would basically be taxation without representation, which is what previous legal precedents have disallowed... that is, until the federal government decides to pass a law enabling states to cooperate on internet sales taxation.
And just wait until the federal government gets involved directly. For only pennies on the dollar, an eBay sales tax could fund Social Security and Medicare for through the baby boom crunch. (Or could it...?)
A stolen laptop's IP address wouldn't be the same on a different network. It's MAC address on the other hand, which is attached to the laptop's hardware, shouldn't change.
If we kill everyone blaming themselves for global warming, the cumulative effect of their lungs no longer producing carbon dioxide would be more than enough to free the world from their stupidity.
I read games magazines and visit games web sites, and I haven't even heard of Psychonauts until your mention of it. You quoted the part where I mentioned "insufficient marketing", yet you wrote that line about it anyway...
The problem with the "innovative, original games" that don't sell is probably some combination of insufficient marketing and a modern crop of ignorant and/or reluctant gamers. People who buy video games don't like to take chances on something they've never tried before, especially not for $50-60 a pop.
You want innovation to sell? Release your "innovative, original games" for free as downloads and give the public a chance to figure it out. Try-before-buy works really well, or has no one learned from MP3/music industry? Oh, wait...
I wrote many papers when I was in high school in college, and nearly every instructor gave the same warning: the internet can be a valuable guide, don't trust anything you read without something solid to back it up.
But perhaps more importantly, the information contained in any encyclopedia is usually a summary of sorts, based on information gathered from a multitude of more credible and valuable sources. A WikiPedia entry is therefore, in many ways, like a student's paper turned into a professor for grading: someone did a little research, organized their findings into a convenient arrangement, and turned it in (with the chance of the effort being rejected).
So, what role should WikiPedia play in education? As a guide, at most. A WikiPedia entry, like any good encyclopedia entry, will associate its topic with various keywords and other topics relevant to the research. And always, always check the citations!
Basically, market the.xxx name for sites that are looking for a purely adult audience. Not just porn...
If you want to include sites aimed primarily at adults that aren't porn, then perhaps.xxx isn't the best top-level domain for them. I can think of only a handful of domains that could work,.adult seeming to be an obvious choice, but since.com or.org can work for those sites as well, why do we need an adult-only domain name again?
On a lighter note, this story and its comments will be one of the top-ranked search results for months to come, because every teen in the country who searches for anything related to porn is going to be led here at some point....or it will be banned for the consistent use of various porn-related keywords.
(In a discussion with free speech implications, you should be careful how you phrase your questions.)
In the United States, anyone has the right to say porn isn't welcome on the rest of the internet, including George Bush. We can say whatever we want.
In fact, we have a right to pursue that idea and even try to implement it, even to others' or our own detriment. That's one of the downfalls of democracy: sometimes the majority and/or those who represent them get it wrong.
Of course, when the actions of a decision-making body affects billions of people in every country in the world, it doesn't really matter what they do, because someone isn't going to like it. (Also, it seems to be a given that any time common sense points one way, political decisions go the opposite.)
The profiles are private, and the information is shared only among those people chosen by adding them to friends lists, and then only according to the privacy settings of each individual user.
The complaints about privacy violations are therefore quite silly, because the information is only available to the people who are allowed to see it in the first place (with one notable exception: through the feed, a user can now see when someone leaves a comment on a non-friend's wall that the first user actually can't see, although the comment itself still cannot be read).
I love the news feed. It makes a wealth of information already available to us more conveniently available. That said, it isn't perfect, and here are a few complaints I have had about it, some of which have an implied solution that I hope the Facebook overlords are considering:
1. I don't like how about a week's worth of recent events were already on our newsfeeds before we had a chance to approve it. Some people who still have not logged into their Facebook accounts for a couple of days have recent activities being broadcast to their friends list because of a feature they never approved.
2. I don't like how we don't have any control over what is automatically fed to our feed. We should be able to work through a series of checkboxes to determine what we do and do not want on our own mini-feed (while, of course, maintaining the ability to delete something from the feed).
3. I don't like the feed now lets people know about changes to NON-FRIENDS' profiles, specifically in the form of wall comments. For instance, if someone makes a comment on my wall, that other person's friends shouldn't see it in their feed unless that person is also MY friend. Friends of friends don't need to know about changes to my wall. The reason: that information was NOT available to them before, so it shouldn't be now.
4. The feed takes away some of the mystery of poking around on Facebook to find information the good old-fashioned way. Then again, I don't have that kind of time on my hands, so the new feature makes it much easier for me to keep track of profile changes people want me to see. This is not a problem for me; I just understand how some of you feel about the stalking-made-easy impression some of you get. But, well, the information was already out there.
5. I don't like how Facebook has been reduced to a mob mentality with an average IQ less than my shoesize. Facebook has fairly extensive privacy options (click the "My Privacy" link at left and look around). Every user's profile is PRIVATE to begin with, and every user can control what others can see. You can edit the default settings for each network of which you're a member, and for everyone. You can also set up your "Limited Profile" and select certain friends to see only that restricted view of your profile.
But, seriously, if you don't want someone to see something you're doing on Facebook, then why are they on your friends list (or not on your Limited Profile list)?
I love the new features. Keeping track of updates people want me to see is now much easier!
1. I don't like how about a week's worth of recent events were already on our newsfeeds before we had a chance to approve it.
2. I don't like how we don't have any control over what is automatically fed to our feed. We should be able to work through a series of checkboxes to determine what we do and do not want on our own mini-feed (while, of course, maintaining the ability to delete something from the feed).
3. Most annoying of all: I don't like how people are complaining about privacy issues when all the information in the feed is available only to those people who could already see it anyway! Not to mention, Facebook has fairly extensive privacy options (click the "My Privacy" link at left and look around) -- you can affect which friends see what according to what Facebook network they're on, and you can also set up your "Limited Profile" and limit what certain friends can see. But, seriously, if you don't want someone to see something you're doing on Facebook, then why are they on your friends list?
But I love the new features. Keeping track of updates people want me to see is now much easier!
I just hate how a great new feature has brought Facebook down to a mob mentality with an average IQ less than my shoe size.
People already turn against quality video programming (the quality is in the production, mind you) on TV. They're not going to tune in to shoddy video programming on the internet when they could spend that time reading six web sites at once while listening to mp3s.
This is an age of multitasking. Videos and sounds are extra and won't be mainstream on the internet for quite some time.
This reeks of technical hackery -- someone abusing facts to push some opinion that grossly distorts the truth. Why aren't these guys working for the government? (Or are they...?)
A few more innovative tweaks here and there coupled with increased population will render the human workforce responsible virtually only for service and human interaction tasks, while lifeless automotons assume repetitive physical functions. The global job market will shrink, and governments will find it more necessary to provide for the jobless. I wonder how we'll adjust... or if I'm completely off base here.
You or others getting defensive about something like is your fault, not the fault of the writer who has no intention of offending anyone.
Despite the idiotic dictionary definition, to be "offensive" requires intention -- that is some kind of "offense" -- otherwise those generating those thought of ill will are just getting defensive for no good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had known about this while the promotion was going on. I downloaded this on a whim after reading a preview, knowing that classic puzzle games like Tetris were always among my favorites, and I knew it would be worth $15.00 (1500 WiiWare points).
I loved it so much that I not only paid an additional $20 (plus tax) to purchase the Windows PC version, just to play it with a mouse (it's more fun on the Wii, but the mouse allows much better control), but I bought two more copies to share with two friends, who loved it just as much. It's a shame I missed this promotion, because I would have told dozens more to pay whatever they thought was fair to get the game for themselves.
Here's my quick review... The gameplay is simple but addictive. It's easy to learn, and the skills are easy to master as you progress through the game. But it's never too easy, and some levels require quite a bit of outside-the-box thinking. And the game is even spiked with the sarcasm of the "sign painter," who leaves vague clues around each level should you need them. (Forget needing them -- each and every sign is a joy to read, and it's worth beating each level just to get to the next bit of witty advice.)
To me, this is the 21st century thinking-man's Tetris. It's a shame that it will never be as popular as Tetris, because it really should be.
Due to licensing issues, this may never happen for a Wii Sports title. However, you might be interested in the Tiger Woods Golf series. It's probably a bit more pricey than you'd like and a bit more difficult than Wii Golf, but it features a few well known courses.
Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are fun to this day, and their graphics by today's standards are terrible. The graphics don't have to be next-gen or hyper-realistic. There is only one crucial element: gameplay. If it's done well -- if it's fun to play the first time and gamers have a reason to keep coming back -- then yes, there is a future for mature gaming on the Wii.
Unfortunately, I think it's going to take a babysteps approach, because Nintendo's current fanbase seems to be mostly casual gamers and the family-friendly types. Anyone not in that category who has a Wii is probably a loyal fan, so Nintendo doesn't need to focus on them -- those fans will find the games they want either way.
I believe Wisconsin internet vendors can only tax Wisconsin buyers. Out-of-state taxation would basically be taxation without representation, which is what previous legal precedents have disallowed... that is, until the federal government decides to pass a law enabling states to cooperate on internet sales taxation.
And just wait until the federal government gets involved directly. For only pennies on the dollar, an eBay sales tax could fund Social Security and Medicare for through the baby boom crunch. (Or could it...?)
So paid account users are sending their money to... Russia?
A stolen laptop's IP address wouldn't be the same on a different network. It's MAC address on the other hand, which is attached to the laptop's hardware, shouldn't change.
If we kill everyone blaming themselves for global warming, the cumulative effect of their lungs no longer producing carbon dioxide would be more than enough to free the world from their stupidity.
I read games magazines and visit games web sites, and I haven't even heard of Psychonauts until your mention of it. You quoted the part where I mentioned "insufficient marketing", yet you wrote that line about it anyway...
The problem with the "innovative, original games" that don't sell is probably some combination of insufficient marketing and a modern crop of ignorant and/or reluctant gamers. People who buy video games don't like to take chances on something they've never tried before, especially not for $50-60 a pop.
You want innovation to sell? Release your "innovative, original games" for free as downloads and give the public a chance to figure it out. Try-before-buy works really well, or has no one learned from MP3/music industry? Oh, wait...
I wrote many papers when I was in high school in college, and nearly every instructor gave the same warning: the internet can be a valuable guide, don't trust anything you read without something solid to back it up.
But perhaps more importantly, the information contained in any encyclopedia is usually a summary of sorts, based on information gathered from a multitude of more credible and valuable sources. A WikiPedia entry is therefore, in many ways, like a student's paper turned into a professor for grading: someone did a little research, organized their findings into a convenient arrangement, and turned it in (with the chance of the effort being rejected).
So, what role should WikiPedia play in education? As a guide, at most. A WikiPedia entry, like any good encyclopedia entry, will associate its topic with various keywords and other topics relevant to the research. And always, always check the citations!
Basically, market the .xxx name for sites that are looking for a purely adult audience. Not just porn...
.xxx isn't the best top-level domain for them. I can think of only a handful of domains that could work, .adult seeming to be an obvious choice, but since .com or .org can work for those sites as well, why do we need an adult-only domain name again?
...or it will be banned for the consistent use of various porn-related keywords.
If you want to include sites aimed primarily at adults that aren't porn, then perhaps
On a lighter note, this story and its comments will be one of the top-ranked search results for months to come, because every teen in the country who searches for anything related to porn is going to be led here at some point.
(In a discussion with free speech implications, you should be careful how you phrase your questions.)
In the United States, anyone has the right to say porn isn't welcome on the rest of the internet, including George Bush. We can say whatever we want.
In fact, we have a right to pursue that idea and even try to implement it, even to others' or our own detriment. That's one of the downfalls of democracy: sometimes the majority and/or those who represent them get it wrong.
Of course, when the actions of a decision-making body affects billions of people in every country in the world, it doesn't really matter what they do, because someone isn't going to like it. (Also, it seems to be a given that any time common sense points one way, political decisions go the opposite.)
Facebook users aren't customers.
Retitle your speech/topic: "How we used to stalk people on Facebook"
Actually, it's not public.
The profiles are private, and the information is shared only among those people chosen by adding them to friends lists, and then only according to the privacy settings of each individual user.
The complaints about privacy violations are therefore quite silly, because the information is only available to the people who are allowed to see it in the first place (with one notable exception: through the feed, a user can now see when someone leaves a comment on a non-friend's wall that the first user actually can't see, although the comment itself still cannot be read).
I love the news feed. It makes a wealth of information already available to us more conveniently available. That said, it isn't perfect, and here are a few complaints I have had about it, some of which have an implied solution that I hope the Facebook overlords are considering:
:)
1. I don't like how about a week's worth of recent events were already on our newsfeeds before we had a chance to approve it. Some people who still have not logged into their Facebook accounts for a couple of days have recent activities being broadcast to their friends list because of a feature they never approved.
2. I don't like how we don't have any control over what is automatically fed to our feed. We should be able to work through a series of checkboxes to determine what we do and do not want on our own mini-feed (while, of course, maintaining the ability to delete something from the feed).
3. I don't like the feed now lets people know about changes to NON-FRIENDS' profiles, specifically in the form of wall comments. For instance, if someone makes a comment on my wall, that other person's friends shouldn't see it in their feed unless that person is also MY friend. Friends of friends don't need to know about changes to my wall. The reason: that information was NOT available to them before, so it shouldn't be now.
4. The feed takes away some of the mystery of poking around on Facebook to find information the good old-fashioned way. Then again, I don't have that kind of time on my hands, so the new feature makes it much easier for me to keep track of profile changes people want me to see. This is not a problem for me; I just understand how some of you feel about the stalking-made-easy impression some of you get. But, well, the information was already out there.
5. I don't like how Facebook has been reduced to a mob mentality with an average IQ less than my shoesize. Facebook has fairly extensive privacy options (click the "My Privacy" link at left and look around). Every user's profile is PRIVATE to begin with, and every user can control what others can see. You can edit the default settings for each network of which you're a member, and for everyone. You can also set up your "Limited Profile" and select certain friends to see only that restricted view of your profile.
But, seriously, if you don't want someone to see something you're doing on Facebook, then why are they on your friends list (or not on your Limited Profile list)?
I love the new features. Keeping track of updates people want me to see is now much easier!
I love you, Facebook.
1. I don't like how about a week's worth of recent events were already on our newsfeeds before we had a chance to approve it.
2. I don't like how we don't have any control over what is automatically fed to our feed. We should be able to work through a series of checkboxes to determine what we do and do not want on our own mini-feed (while, of course, maintaining the ability to delete something from the feed).
3. Most annoying of all: I don't like how people are complaining about privacy issues when all the information in the feed is available only to those people who could already see it anyway! Not to mention, Facebook has fairly extensive privacy options (click the "My Privacy" link at left and look around) -- you can affect which friends see what according to what Facebook network they're on, and you can also set up your "Limited Profile" and limit what certain friends can see. But, seriously, if you don't want someone to see something you're doing on Facebook, then why are they on your friends list?
But I love the new features. Keeping track of updates people want me to see is now much easier!
I just hate how a great new feature has brought Facebook down to a mob mentality with an average IQ less than my shoe size.
Yes. Imagine the jokes around the watercooler!
Yeah, Microsoft totally dropped the ball on this one.
People already turn against quality video programming (the quality is in the production, mind you) on TV. They're not going to tune in to shoddy video programming on the internet when they could spend that time reading six web sites at once while listening to mp3s.
This is an age of multitasking. Videos and sounds are extra and won't be mainstream on the internet for quite some time.
Uranus is so big it has its own orbit.
(Family Guy, anyone?)
This reeks of technical hackery -- someone abusing facts to push some opinion that grossly distorts the truth. Why aren't these guys working for the government? (Or are they...?)
A few more innovative tweaks here and there coupled with increased population will render the human workforce responsible virtually only for service and human interaction tasks, while lifeless automotons assume repetitive physical functions. The global job market will shrink, and governments will find it more necessary to provide for the jobless. I wonder how we'll adjust... or if I'm completely off base here.
You or others getting defensive about something like is your fault, not the fault of the writer who has no intention of offending anyone.
Despite the idiotic dictionary definition, to be "offensive" requires intention -- that is some kind of "offense" -- otherwise those generating those thought of ill will are just getting defensive for no good reason.