Why would you want to use a GC controller for a driving game when you can hold this thing in 2 hands and rotate it like a steering wheel? Better yet, get the optional "steering wheel controller" and snap the "stick" control into the center!
We won't really know what the controller is like until we try it, but I can see this becoming THE standard controller technology of the future.
No man, moving the pointer on the screen couldn't rotate your view, that would be weird. Best way to do it would probably be to rotate when you point off the edge of the TV, with greater angle away from tv == faster rotation. Then just point back at the screen to stop rotating and start aiming.
It will be up to the game designers to figure out how to do it best, but the way I would imagine doing an FPS would be to move your character's arm by pointing at the screen, and rotate your player's body by pointing off the screen. For clarification, say you have a crosshair on the screen that shows where you are pointing. When you move the crosshair to the edge (or maybe just close to the edge) the view rotates. The further off the edge you point, the faster you turn. Can you picture it? Analog stick in the other hand acts as your WASD. I think that would be pretty awesome.
I don't know about that, I think the Nintendo haters just tend to whine louder. Take a look at these GameFAQs polls, for example: Got XBox?(The title is missing from the poll for some reason, but you can find the link to it here) Got Gamecube?
Looks like a bunch of Nintendo fans, judging by the numbers for the "no, and I never will" option.
Actually, the porting difficulty could work to Nintendo's advantage. If you can just get third parties to make games for it, those games will automatically be exclusives -- or at least not nearly as fun when ported to the other systems.
OTOH, FPS games might be ported fairly easily, and end up being a lot more fun with the orientation-sensitive control. Who knows until we play it, I guess.
4) They are shipping at least two controllers per unit, right? 'cos if there's just one, then designers can't rely on the numchuck configuration.
Probably just 1 controller per unit, but you still get the numchuck configuration. The second half of the numchuck is the analog stick control, not another orientation-sensitive control. Iwata said in the presentation that the analog add-on controller would be included standard.
Fuck you you trolling asshole. I just thought you were some dipshit kid, but now I see that you're a fucktard that won't even attempt a rational argument. Keep your head in your ass. I could go back and quote the points at which I supported my position (something which you haven't even attempted to do) but what would be the point when you didn't even read it the first time?
I suppose I ought to try and help you open your brain in the interest of everyone that has to interact with you, but I'm not going to waste my time. Don't bother continuing this conversation, because I'm not going to read your response. Just go somewhere else and yell about whatever senseless shit you feel like you need to spout. Your unsupported opinions are worthless, and therefore you are irrelevant. May you someday figure that out.
You miss my point. I can make very good arguments about why the racial slurs that you used are offensive. You have NOT, in multiple posts, ever given a single reason why you think "redneck" is offensive. Why would you expect me to change my mind without a reason to do so?
"Because I think it's offensive" is not a good enough reason for me. If the word was consistently used by evil bastards to torment the repressed, I would consider that a good reason. Comprende?
Sorry, I guess since the group I'm labeling isn't persecuted and never has been, I don't feel bad about it. I'm not PC, I guess - but hey, nobody's perfect.
Oh, and you might want to rethink your terminology. Since "redneck" isn't a race, "racism" doesn't really work. I don't know what you would call it exactly. I'm not bigoted against rednecks (in fact I qualify as one myself). I apologize for offending you, but in my view the word just doesn't have any more power than "city slicker." In fact, I would be far more offended being called a city slicker than a redneck any day, because I feel like we're all being forced into crowded areas by population growth. I don't want to be called a city slicker because I don't want to be a city slicker. If someone is one, however, I don't feel bad about calling them one.
City slickers are not a race, and it is therefore not racism. They are not a group that has been treated like shit by the majority. The name has not been used as a weapon. If somebody is offended at being called a city slicker, I'm not going to take them seriously.
Here's another way to look at it, if you're actually bothering to read this far - anybody can pick something and decide that they're offended by it. Say Bob decides that he is offended to be called "tall" because he doesn't think he's any taller than average. Should I feel bad about calling him "tall"? What's the test? How do I decide if it's OK? The way I see it, he doesn't have a good enough reason to be offended. If he can't make a good argument for why it's offensive, then he's shit out of luck.
It's either ok or it's not. It's not. Case closed, subject over, period, fin.
Wow. The world is all about absolutes, huh?
We label people all of the time. There's not much wrong with it unless the label is used to hurt the person labeled. It's a matter of degree, of course - "nerd" is sometimes used harmfully, but I don't think many Slashdot geeks were offended by the story about "Nerd TV" the other day. Other words were used in such an offensive manner by such nasty people that they will take many many generations to lose their bilious effect.
Its much easier to dumb one or two smart asses down than to smart a whole neighborhood of dumb asses up!
Yeah, but which is more valuable? Is the easiest path the best?
IMO, we would all be better off if the average citizen understood the basics of science and math. You don't need above average intelligence to understand the scientific method, the basics of physics, and a bit of calculus. It just takes some effort. It may not be "easy" to make education a priority, just as it's not easy to make physical fitness a priority. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
You could argue that real science should stay out of the newspaper until we reach that point, but I would disagree. I think that being exposed to challenges encourages people to increase their level of effort, even though they would prefer be lazy. Also, just like exercise, once you get going you actually enjoy it -- it's just the initial motivation that's difficult for people. Why should we make things easy for ourselves, if we'll just get stuck in that rut?
If you really can't see the difference, then think about it for a while. Put yourself in each position and try to view the situation from that perspective.
Personally, I am a redneck. And no, I don't give a shit if somebody calls me one. Maybe it's because I'm one of the luckiest, most spoiled people on the planet? Has the American Redneck ever been screwed by the very society that he is a part of?
It's like christians complaining about being persecuted (in America in recent history). They have everything going for them in this country, they're marchin' around telling other people how much better they are without any sort of supporting evidence, they're trying to force everybody to live according to christian beliefs, and yet they can't handle criticism. Pretty hard to take it seriously when they whine about being picked on. When you're on top, you're fair game for attack -- they just don't realize that their only defense is an illusion.
When politics wages war on science, science magazines are bound to defend themselves.
You may not like the opinions you hear from scientists, but unless you can make a better supported counter argument you'd better reconsider your position. Unlike most opinions that you hear, the opinions in Scientific American are defensible positions. They're not just spewing BS like politicians and the people on TV news/talk shows.
No, a business is like a machine, with rules written on paper. It tries to maximize profits within the rules of the game. The humans that run the business have morals, but it's easy for them to overlook them since they're just doing what the business tells them to.
If you say it right then you won't look like you're saying anything. It should be said with as little effort as possible, to show your extreme lack of enthusiasm.;)
Justifying my beliefs to another person pretty much involves describing the Bible's message, and understanding that the Moral Law (the 10 Commandments) has been written onto our hearts by God at conception.
Sorry, but I don't find that convincing. Basically you're saying that I should agree with your morals because you believe in them. Contrary to what you said above, our morals do change over time, and even right now they vary throughout the world. People used to think that it was OK to stone people to death for committing adultery. In some areas of the world cannibalism was an accepted part of society, as you mentioned. Saying that a certain set of morals is the "right" set, and that God decided them, is making a pretty extraordinary claim. What evidence is there of this? Somebody told you that it's true? It's written in a book? Who wrote that book? How do you know? How many times has it been modified and translated?
If I told you that I was a firm believer in Greek mythology, what would you think of that? If I told you that my house burned down because Zeus hit it with a lightning bolt, what thoughts would go through your head? Would you accept my explanation without question, or would you think: "Gee, that doesn't seem to fit with the physical world that I experience."
You see what I'm getting at? You can believe in souls and spirits and whatever you want, but you can't use them to convince somebody else of anything. Claiming that your morals come from God is a pretty big deal - basically you're saying that you have ultimate power backing up your opinions. You can't expect anybody to accept something so astounding without some really good evidence, so you're reduced to the position that the morals you have are based entirely in your own head. I don't mean to sound offensive, but I do mean to defend myself against your claim above that "If there is no absolute truth, then there are no morals." I can justify my morals in terms of the real world. To base your morals on absolute truth is to base them on something that may or may not exist. Not only that, but we can not ever know whether it exists or not. It has to be taken on faith, which means it only exists in your imagination.
I'm afraid I can't support your conclusion - I'm 29, I've played through all of the zeldas except MM, AOS, and AOA, and I thought the graphics in WW were awesome. Between the graphics and the gameplay, the only things it lacked were difficulty and a dungeon for each triforce piece.
Seriously, I can just cruise around in that game and watch the trees, the ocean, the birds... best graphics of any game I've ever played.
I don't dislike realistic graphics (Twilight Princess looks rad), but most games use a realistic style nowadays, so I really enjoy the ones that are different. WW and Viewtiful Joe are the most creative ones that come to mind at the moment. We all know that it's the gameplay that matters, but interesting graphics can really immerse you in a game. I'm pretty excited about cartoon shading techniques - looking at a game like Wind Waker makes me wonder when we're going to get the videogame version of Ninja Scroll...
If there is no absolute truth, then there are no morals.
Guess what... yes there are! Morals are defined by humans and for humans. Most of our morals are the ingrained instincts that allow us to function as a group. In a cosmic sense, cheating and stealing aren't any more "right" or "wrong" than any other sequence of events. In terms of humans, though, they are behaviors that cause the breakdown of society. Our "senses" of right and wrong exist today because they are the senses that allowed us to succeed in the first place. We would not be here without them.
Of course, this in no way implies any kind of supernatural source for right and wrong - no more than the presence of fingers on our hands does. Fingers serve a useful purpose to the organism just as ingrained "morals" serve a useful purpose to the group. Other, more modern morals such as all humans being treated equally are not yet ingrained - we made them up because we reasoned that they were right. They mean nothing in the cosmic sense, but as a group we decided that inequality was wrong.
So, even though there is no (and can be no) evidence of any absolute truth in the universe (absolute truths may or may not exist, regardless they are beyond our reach) I as a human can feel guilt, love, justice, and a whole range of useful emotions. No spirituality is required to feel these things - your body is wired to work this way because it's useful (or, in the case of some behaviors, was useful in the past) both to yourself and to human society. In fact, many things that are viewed as "evil" are merely more primitive instincts. Before our ancestors began to live in cooperative groups, murder and theft were the name of the game. Is a dog evil because it will kill and eat a child? Dogs have no sense of good and evil, because they don't have a sophisticated society that requires it.
Oh, and I have no problem with your believing in God, but you have to admit that there's nothing in the physically accessible universe that justifies such a belief. If your morals are based on "what God says," then how exactly do you justify those morals to another person?
That doesn't exactly hold up either. Believe in God just in case? You underestimate the infinite number of possibilities. What if the universe was created by an anti-god, who will make you pay in the afterlife if you do believe in him? What if he tortures you with his noodly appendage for believing in him when you had no evidence of his existence? It's just as probable as a friendly god that wants you to believe.
As for "faith in the eternality of the physical universe," you're too caught up in absolute truths. I have no faith in the physical universe, I'm just working under the assumption that it exists, and with the knowledge that I can't possibly know what's outside of it. That information is out of bounds. Sure, you can pick a possible explanation and go with it (i.e. belief in God) but what's the use? Work with what you've got. Live in the world you can interact with.
Small correction - the N64 didn't use memory cards. I agree that it seems to be an industry standard, though. Is it a good standard? I think you could make a pretty good argument for at least a minimally sized memory card being included with consoles.
A return to basic ethics and morals that are grounded in myth? Gee, I wonder why nobody gives much credence to 'em anymore. What we need is an educated population with morals and ethics that are grounded in the benefit of the greater good.
A "Christian Republic" would ultimately fail or prove useless because it would have no basis in reality. You can't build a very tall wall on quicksand, and you can't build a very informed society on religion.
Slashdot Mirror
We won't really know what the controller is like until we try it, but I can see this becoming THE standard controller technology of the future.
Got XBox?(The title is missing from the poll for some reason, but you can find the link to it here)
Got Gamecube?
Looks like a bunch of Nintendo fans, judging by the numbers for the "no, and I never will" option.
OTOH, FPS games might be ported fairly easily, and end up being a lot more fun with the orientation-sensitive control. Who knows until we play it, I guess.
Of course, if you don't want to try it out you can always wait for the MS or Sony version... ;)
I suppose I ought to try and help you open your brain in the interest of everyone that has to interact with you, but I'm not going to waste my time. Don't bother continuing this conversation, because I'm not going to read your response. Just go somewhere else and yell about whatever senseless shit you feel like you need to spout. Your unsupported opinions are worthless, and therefore you are irrelevant. May you someday figure that out.
"Because I think it's offensive" is not a good enough reason for me. If the word was consistently used by evil bastards to torment the repressed, I would consider that a good reason. Comprende?
Oh, and you might want to rethink your terminology. Since "redneck" isn't a race, "racism" doesn't really work. I don't know what you would call it exactly. I'm not bigoted against rednecks (in fact I qualify as one myself). I apologize for offending you, but in my view the word just doesn't have any more power than "city slicker." In fact, I would be far more offended being called a city slicker than a redneck any day, because I feel like we're all being forced into crowded areas by population growth. I don't want to be called a city slicker because I don't want to be a city slicker. If someone is one, however, I don't feel bad about calling them one.
City slickers are not a race, and it is therefore not racism. They are not a group that has been treated like shit by the majority. The name has not been used as a weapon. If somebody is offended at being called a city slicker, I'm not going to take them seriously.
Here's another way to look at it, if you're actually bothering to read this far - anybody can pick something and decide that they're offended by it. Say Bob decides that he is offended to be called "tall" because he doesn't think he's any taller than average. Should I feel bad about calling him "tall"? What's the test? How do I decide if it's OK? The way I see it, he doesn't have a good enough reason to be offended. If he can't make a good argument for why it's offensive, then he's shit out of luck.
We label people all of the time. There's not much wrong with it unless the label is used to hurt the person labeled. It's a matter of degree, of course - "nerd" is sometimes used harmfully, but I don't think many Slashdot geeks were offended by the story about "Nerd TV" the other day. Other words were used in such an offensive manner by such nasty people that they will take many many generations to lose their bilious effect.
"Redneck" is not one of those words.
IMO, we would all be better off if the average citizen understood the basics of science and math. You don't need above average intelligence to understand the scientific method, the basics of physics, and a bit of calculus. It just takes some effort. It may not be "easy" to make education a priority, just as it's not easy to make physical fitness a priority. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
You could argue that real science should stay out of the newspaper until we reach that point, but I would disagree. I think that being exposed to challenges encourages people to increase their level of effort, even though they would prefer be lazy. Also, just like exercise, once you get going you actually enjoy it -- it's just the initial motivation that's difficult for people. Why should we make things easy for ourselves, if we'll just get stuck in that rut?
Personally, I am a redneck. And no, I don't give a shit if somebody calls me one. Maybe it's because I'm one of the luckiest, most spoiled people on the planet? Has the American Redneck ever been screwed by the very society that he is a part of?
It's like christians complaining about being persecuted (in America in recent history). They have everything going for them in this country, they're marchin' around telling other people how much better they are without any sort of supporting evidence, they're trying to force everybody to live according to christian beliefs, and yet they can't handle criticism. Pretty hard to take it seriously when they whine about being picked on. When you're on top, you're fair game for attack -- they just don't realize that their only defense is an illusion.
You may not like the opinions you hear from scientists, but unless you can make a better supported counter argument you'd better reconsider your position. Unlike most opinions that you hear, the opinions in Scientific American are defensible positions. They're not just spewing BS like politicians and the people on TV news/talk shows.
Well, that's how I read it anyway.
If I told you that I was a firm believer in Greek mythology, what would you think of that? If I told you that my house burned down because Zeus hit it with a lightning bolt, what thoughts would go through your head? Would you accept my explanation without question, or would you think: "Gee, that doesn't seem to fit with the physical world that I experience."
You see what I'm getting at? You can believe in souls and spirits and whatever you want, but you can't use them to convince somebody else of anything. Claiming that your morals come from God is a pretty big deal - basically you're saying that you have ultimate power backing up your opinions. You can't expect anybody to accept something so astounding without some really good evidence, so you're reduced to the position that the morals you have are based entirely in your own head. I don't mean to sound offensive, but I do mean to defend myself against your claim above that "If there is no absolute truth, then there are no morals." I can justify my morals in terms of the real world. To base your morals on absolute truth is to base them on something that may or may not exist. Not only that, but we can not ever know whether it exists or not. It has to be taken on faith, which means it only exists in your imagination.
Seriously, I can just cruise around in that game and watch the trees, the ocean, the birds... best graphics of any game I've ever played.
I don't dislike realistic graphics (Twilight Princess looks rad), but most games use a realistic style nowadays, so I really enjoy the ones that are different. WW and Viewtiful Joe are the most creative ones that come to mind at the moment. We all know that it's the gameplay that matters, but interesting graphics can really immerse you in a game. I'm pretty excited about cartoon shading techniques - looking at a game like Wind Waker makes me wonder when we're going to get the videogame version of Ninja Scroll...
Of course, this in no way implies any kind of supernatural source for right and wrong - no more than the presence of fingers on our hands does. Fingers serve a useful purpose to the organism just as ingrained "morals" serve a useful purpose to the group. Other, more modern morals such as all humans being treated equally are not yet ingrained - we made them up because we reasoned that they were right. They mean nothing in the cosmic sense, but as a group we decided that inequality was wrong.
So, even though there is no (and can be no) evidence of any absolute truth in the universe (absolute truths may or may not exist, regardless they are beyond our reach) I as a human can feel guilt, love, justice, and a whole range of useful emotions. No spirituality is required to feel these things - your body is wired to work this way because it's useful (or, in the case of some behaviors, was useful in the past) both to yourself and to human society. In fact, many things that are viewed as "evil" are merely more primitive instincts. Before our ancestors began to live in cooperative groups, murder and theft were the name of the game. Is a dog evil because it will kill and eat a child? Dogs have no sense of good and evil, because they don't have a sophisticated society that requires it.
Oh, and I have no problem with your believing in God, but you have to admit that there's nothing in the physically accessible universe that justifies such a belief. If your morals are based on "what God says," then how exactly do you justify those morals to another person?
As for "faith in the eternality of the physical universe," you're too caught up in absolute truths. I have no faith in the physical universe, I'm just working under the assumption that it exists, and with the knowledge that I can't possibly know what's outside of it. That information is out of bounds. Sure, you can pick a possible explanation and go with it (i.e. belief in God) but what's the use? Work with what you've got. Live in the world you can interact with.
A "Christian Republic" would ultimately fail or prove useless because it would have no basis in reality. You can't build a very tall wall on quicksand, and you can't build a very informed society on religion.