Yes, only a tiny number of people end up killing others. That doens't mean that there aren't many in similar positions, having similar feelings. Most probably end up hurting or killing "only" themselves, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it. You seem to think that there is no problem, and that there are some insane fucks who just want to kill others, and that we can't do anything about it. None of these three things are true.
Why has everyone jumped on the Hate Sony bandwagon, despite the PS3 being by far the best console of this generation?
Because a) Sony constantly fucks its customers and behaves like it doesn't care, and b) the PS3 isn't "by far the best console of this generation." There's more to a good console than hardware specs. Ever heard of this little thing called "games," for example?
You are talking as if all the consoles were easily available to people who want them. This is not the case. The Wii and PS3 are selling out everywhere. Nintendo has less of a problem with production than Sony does so obviously it is going to sell more consoles.
Actually, I'd say it's quite the opposite. In my own anecdotal experience, I've seen PS3s available for sale, whereas I have no luck with the Wii. There's have been some news stories regarding the PS3 "non-shortage" as well. So, I'd say Nintendo has the big problem with production, since demand is arguably greater than anticipated.
There is no contradiction here. Nintendo has less of a problem with production, but they also seem to have vastly larger demand than Sony, so in the end, it's harder to get a Wii even though Nintendo produces a lot more consoles than Sony.
anti-gun laws tend to leave only the criminals armed
That is kind of by definition. However, is it a bad thing? If only criminals are armed, there will obviously be less shooting involving innocent people, because they don't have guns and thus won't be tempted to fight back. Which makes it safer for everyone.
Frankly, if I'm in a crime, I don't want some well-meaning non-criminal trying to take out the criminals.
Why is any explanation beyond "they are outcasts who wanted to kill" even necessary to explain something so rare?
I think you just answered your own question: Because there are people who think that the only explanation necessary is "they are outcasts who wanted to kill."
I think the game's title is part of its concept. It's done in the old SNES RPG style, where many games had titles like that. I think the game's creator intentionally used the game's style as part of his message. Have you actually played the game, or are you just assuming that it's done without respect and decency? Because I would disagree with that assessment.
Typically, this means having to select something new every few minutes
Yeah, but youtube always offers links to "related" videos, so I generally just click on whatever seems most interesting after a video has stopped playing. It's simple with the Wiimote. And a hypothetical iTV youtube feature would certainly make that easy using the Apple remote, too.
But yeah, the quality is crap. Dunno if most people care too much. I don't.
People are not going to sit down on their couch and watch Youtube for an hour or three
I do, and I know lots of people who do, too. Maybe you're just old:-)
Seriously, I used to watch youtube in the morning and in the evening while eating. Since the Wii Browser, I just use that instead. When I'm eating, I want some kind of distraction that doesn't require too much thinking on my part. Youtube works perfectly. I know people who watch youtube intead of TV. They just hang in front of the computer all evening and click from one movie to the next.
So yeah. People are going to (and already do) sit down on their couch and watch Youtube. Maybe not always for three hours straight, but that doesn't really matter for the current discussion.
"Faked" punches (where you punch in one direction and then change to another direction before hitting) are somewhat hard to execute, but possible. You start your punch in the given direction, but exaggerated (if you want to hit your oponent on the right side of his body, try hitting straight right), and then change direction (without changing the direction of the remote itself, I think). It takes a bit of trying, but it's possible. It's sometimes possible to get around or below your opponent's block that way.
I have a problem with the number of punches I am able to throw in a given time. They may have toned it down on purpose to prevent people from winning by just swinging as fast as they could.
Ah, yes, that's true. You can't throw the next punch until the current punch is "finished," and it takes a fixed time for a given punch to finish, no matter how fast you throw your punches (the same, by the way, applies to Zelda: hitting with your sword starts a predefined animation which you can't interrupt). The result of this is that you have to be much more careful when to punch, since you can't just punch again right afterwards.
However, if you check out the computer drivers for the Wii remote, you'll see that it would technically be capable of delivering much more precise control.
Any sort of swing will cause him to smack the ball.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about the swing, which, again, starts a predefined animation. I was talking about how the Mii holds the bat before you swing. Check it out, you can control the position quite precisely.
And let's face it, people's expectations for Lucas to deliver are through the damn roof. A mediocre Star Wars game would be a blow to both them and Nintendo.
I don't like Rayman as much as everybody else seems to. I own both Rayman and Super Monkey Ball, and I prefer Monkey Ball. Two reasons:
You don't have to unlock every minigame in Monkey Ball. They're already unlocked.
In Rayman, most multiplayer games are turn-based. Player 1, then Player 2, then Player 3... It's much more fun to play at the same time, and Monkey Ball delivers that
Rayman is a nice game (the minigames are generally better than in Monkey Ball), but it could be so much more if they hadn't forced you to unlock every damn game in single player mode, and if they hade actually implemented a decent multiplayer mode.
To do a "Rocket Serve", you need to hit the ball at its highest point. It stands still for a very short amount of time, and you need to hit it at this precise moment. I get it about 75% of the time, but my brother gets it almost 100%.
From what I've heard (...) the stuff that the Wiimote adds to games like Twilight Princess and Rayman Raving Rabbids is about as much as what the Sixaxis adds to Call of Duty 3. That is to say, not a whole lot
Go find a Wii. Play for a few hours. Then come back and apologize.
So you picked the three most stale franchises Nintendo has. Good job on that, congratulations. Of course, you neglected to mention that of these franchises, exactly one is on the Wii as of now. There are plenty of innovative Wii games available and coming, both from Nintendo and from third parties. Naming three franchises which did not see huge changes in recent times does not change that.
Any talk right now of people generally not wanting PS3s or that the whole world wants to switch to Wiis is only coming from folks who let their emotions run wild instead of looking at the facts
Total_Wimp, please meet Artie MacStrawman.
I don't think anyone ever claimed that nobody wanted a PS3, or that the whole world wanted to switch to Wiis.
Overrated games (...) The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (...) The same gameplay as the previous ones
So Zelda is overrated because it isn't as innovative as some other franchises - yet the games which are in your top five list are pretty much more of the same, too?
Yes, Zelda isn't innovative. It's even a step back in innovation from The Wind Waker (apart from the really cool controls in the Wii version). But it's a damn good game. In fact, it's probably the best single-player game of the year. Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about its innovation. It's an utterly awesome game, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
If you've played Ocarina of Time or Wind Waker, there's nothing new for you to experience in Twilight Princess
Yes, there is. There's an awesome new story to experience, great new art direction to enjoy, fantastic new music to listen to, complicated new dungeons to solve, and so on. It's 60 new hours of Zelda goodness. That's all I want out of a Zelda game, and Twilight Princess delivers in truckloads.
After playing the very simplistic version of golf in Wii Sports, I just can't go back to those other golf games. Wii Sports has spoiled them for me. It just feels weird pushing the buttons to swing the iron... Don't play any Wii golfing games if you like golf games on other consoles!
I don't think you actually control the speed in Wii Sports Boxing at all. You control when you punch, but I think the speed of the punches is always the same.
I think a lightsaber game would definitely be possible. Wii Sports Baseball does a pretty good job of tracking the controller's orientation.
The more you play Wii Sports, the more you figure out how to play the games. Did you know you can slice the ball in Wii Tennis?
I am personally looking forward to a tennis game that actually cares how you hold the remote, since the technology is there.
Interestingly, Wii Sports Tennis does care. In addition to forehand, backhand and how or high balls, it's possible to slice the ball. How to do it is not immediately obvious. I first saw this when the better computer players started doing it, and I've figured out how to do it: You turn the controller while hitting the ball as if you were to slice it in real tennis. Well... D'oh.
It takes a bit of trying, but it works.
It's pretty funny to shoot balls like that, because they curve, and when they hit the ground, they change their direction - sometimes dramatically, which makes it really hard to time returns.
Similarly, when first playing Wii Sports Boxing, most people start flaying the controllers in every which direction. Sooner or later, one player goes down and doesn't come up again, and the other declares himself the winner. At first, I thought this game sucked, but after playing it for a bit, I figured out that there's a huge amount of tactics and precision involved. Covering and evading is a lot more important than hitting. Avoid the other person's hits and hit back when he lets his cover down. Hit with precision: If you move your body sideways and your hands up and down, it's possible to hit very specific parts of the other person's body, thus going through his or her cover. When I play the game with my brother, nobody ever goes down since if the other player knows how to avoid being hit, it's very hard to knock him out. It's a lot of fun to play the game like that, lots of tactics and precision involved.
Oh, and by the way, Wii Sports is my personal Game of the Year. Yeah, Zelda is a much better game in every way, except... Playing Wii Sports against a few pals is the most fun I've ever had with a console. Nothing comes even close. No Dance Dance Revolution, no Guitar Hero, no Bomberman, no Mario Party, no Donkey Konga, no Super Monkey Ball. Nothing.
Will the Mac game market suffer? Sure. The reason is simply: it's always been a really small market. People never bought Macs for gaming, but some Mac users wanted games. Porting games to Macs is a huge undertaking, so only few games got ported, and they always arrived late. Mac users only bought Mac games because they had no other choice (apart from a few truly great Mac games).
Obviously, being able to run Windows games on the Mac (and not having to wait for a crappy port a year later, if one is even planned) is a huge advantage.
All of that does not apply to the rest of the Mac software market. The Mac software market is not small, it doesn't have "ports," there are lots of great Mac-only apps, cross-platform apps are generally developed for both platforms at the same time (and often have unique Mac-only features), and so on. The Mac game market may be pretty much dead. The Mac app market remains unscathed.
Mac users bought Mac games because it was the only choice. They bought Mac apps because they wanted to.
Now that there's another choice, they won't buy Mac games anymore, but they'll still buy Mac apps.
I just know they don't just throw _____ (insert latest gadget here) into a product as a checkbox filler. Are you kidding? That's all Apple have ever done!
Heh, that's funny. There are lots of things to criticise about Apple, but they absolutely don't "just throw [latest gadget] into a product as a checkbox filler." One of the main criticism of iPods is that "they don't contain feature X found in many other mp3 players." Compared to players from Creative or even to the Zune, the iPod is underfeatured. That's because unless the feature makes some kind of sense and can be integrated into the "iPod experience" in a moderately non-confusing way, Apple won't do it.
Can you give me anything about the iPod that's actually innovative, rather than "Same as competitor's product but looks sexier".
Uhm... That's an entirely different question. Did Apple introduce anything new with the iPod? In a way, no. They took features away compared to other MP3 players, which is what grandparent was saying: Apple doesn't just throwin features left and right. What they did was make the iPod easy and efficient to use (especially compared to other players at the time).
So... you're not even contradicting what grandparent has said. You have a valid point (the iPod's features aren't that innovative), but it actually agrees with grandparent's point (Apple doesn't just add the latest fancy feature to the iPod whenever it gets the chance), as far as I can tell.
The potential for TPM-based DRM systems doesn't exist in Windows and OSX?
Mac OS X's firmware does not advertise the existence of TPM. You can't use it on Mac OS X, and more recent Macs don't seem to contain it at all.
Your argument that TPM support is almost as bad as a DRM system because strong DRM depends on a TPM is a complete fallacy. Counterexample: bludgeoning someone to death requires a heavy object such as a baseball bat, but owning a baseball bat is not "almost as bad as" murdering someone.
Wrong argument. If you're surrounded by a bunch of unarmed muggers, giving them a baseball bat is most certainly almost as bad as just giving them your wallet.
And how in the world is pointing out facts FUD? So people should not be allowed to know that the Linux kernel contains support for TPM?
You know, in every Slashdot story about the current-gen consoles, there are a few of these strange anti-Wii comments. I always wonder: Have these people actually played a Wii? Are they immune to fun? Are they eight-year-olds who are offended by a game if they can't impress their pals by ripping off a zombie's head and spilling his guts all over the place? Others have already pointed out that you've got your facts wrong - you're comparing games and weirdly, the PS3 comes out ahead - but I have to add to that and ask: Who in their right mind can play Wii Sports with a few friends and not have a blast?
I'm what most people would consider a hard-core gamer. I got probably about 50 different consoles and gaming handhelds. No other console has ever inspired the kind of reaction that the Wii has.
You sound like you're trying to say, in a "'nuff said" sort of way, that there's DRM in the Linux kernel. There isn't
TPM opens the doors for truly draconian DRM systems. This potential does not exist in Windows XP, and it does not exist in Mac OS X. Obviously, if there's ever an application which makes use of TPM in Linux in such a way, people are free to not use it - just as you can use iTunes without downloading DRM'd music. Nevertheless, since people often criticise iTunes for its support for DRM'd music, these same people should know that Linux contains the technology for DRM which puts anything iTunes can do to shame.
From a purist's standpoint, support for TPM alone is almost as bad as actual DRM using TPM, because without TPM, DRM is much less threatening. TPM can be used to take control of data away from you. Without TPM, this is much harder.
Yes, TPM has positive uses. That doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing, all said and done.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, only a tiny number of people end up killing others. That doens't mean that there aren't many in similar positions, having similar feelings. Most probably end up hurting or killing "only" themselves, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it. You seem to think that there is no problem, and that there are some insane fucks who just want to kill others, and that we can't do anything about it. None of these three things are true.
Or maybe you're just trolling.
Because a) Sony constantly fucks its customers and behaves like it doesn't care, and b) the PS3 isn't "by far the best console of this generation." There's more to a good console than hardware specs. Ever heard of this little thing called "games," for example?
There is no contradiction here. Nintendo has less of a problem with production, but they also seem to have vastly larger demand than Sony, so in the end, it's harder to get a Wii even though Nintendo produces a lot more consoles than Sony.
That is kind of by definition. However, is it a bad thing? If only criminals are armed, there will obviously be less shooting involving innocent people, because they don't have guns and thus won't be tempted to fight back. Which makes it safer for everyone.
Frankly, if I'm in a crime, I don't want some well-meaning non-criminal trying to take out the criminals.
I think you just answered your own question: Because there are people who think that the only explanation necessary is "they are outcasts who wanted to kill."
I think the game's title is part of its concept. It's done in the old SNES RPG style, where many games had titles like that. I think the game's creator intentionally used the game's style as part of his message. Have you actually played the game, or are you just assuming that it's done without respect and decency? Because I would disagree with that assessment.
Yeah, but youtube always offers links to "related" videos, so I generally just click on whatever seems most interesting after a video has stopped playing. It's simple with the Wiimote. And a hypothetical iTV youtube feature would certainly make that easy using the Apple remote, too.
But yeah, the quality is crap. Dunno if most people care too much. I don't.
I do, and I know lots of people who do, too. Maybe you're just old :-)
Seriously, I used to watch youtube in the morning and in the evening while eating. Since the Wii Browser, I just use that instead. When I'm eating, I want some kind of distraction that doesn't require too much thinking on my part. Youtube works perfectly. I know people who watch youtube intead of TV. They just hang in front of the computer all evening and click from one movie to the next.
So yeah. People are going to (and already do) sit down on their couch and watch Youtube. Maybe not always for three hours straight, but that doesn't really matter for the current discussion.
"Faked" punches (where you punch in one direction and then change to another direction before hitting) are somewhat hard to execute, but possible. You start your punch in the given direction, but exaggerated (if you want to hit your oponent on the right side of his body, try hitting straight right), and then change direction (without changing the direction of the remote itself, I think). It takes a bit of trying, but it's possible. It's sometimes possible to get around or below your opponent's block that way.
Ah, yes, that's true. You can't throw the next punch until the current punch is "finished," and it takes a fixed time for a given punch to finish, no matter how fast you throw your punches (the same, by the way, applies to Zelda: hitting with your sword starts a predefined animation which you can't interrupt). The result of this is that you have to be much more careful when to punch, since you can't just punch again right afterwards.
However, if you check out the computer drivers for the Wii remote, you'll see that it would technically be capable of delivering much more precise control.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about the swing, which, again, starts a predefined animation. I was talking about how the Mii holds the bat before you swing. Check it out, you can control the position quite precisely.
Yeah, that is probably true.
I don't like Rayman as much as everybody else seems to. I own both Rayman and Super Monkey Ball, and I prefer Monkey Ball. Two reasons:
Rayman is a nice game (the minigames are generally better than in Monkey Ball), but it could be so much more if they hadn't forced you to unlock every damn game in single player mode, and if they hade actually implemented a decent multiplayer mode.
To do a "Rocket Serve", you need to hit the ball at its highest point. It stands still for a very short amount of time, and you need to hit it at this precise moment. I get it about 75% of the time, but my brother gets it almost 100%.
Go find a Wii. Play for a few hours. Then come back and apologize.
So you picked the three most stale franchises Nintendo has. Good job on that, congratulations. Of course, you neglected to mention that of these franchises, exactly one is on the Wii as of now. There are plenty of innovative Wii games available and coming, both from Nintendo and from third parties. Naming three franchises which did not see huge changes in recent times does not change that.
Here in Switzerland, all stores I frequent still have the empty Wii boxes with "sold out" written on them...
Total_Wimp, please meet Artie MacStrawman.
I don't think anyone ever claimed that nobody wanted a PS3, or that the whole world wanted to switch to Wiis.
So Zelda is overrated because it isn't as innovative as some other franchises - yet the games which are in your top five list are pretty much more of the same, too?
Yes, Zelda isn't innovative. It's even a step back in innovation from The Wind Waker (apart from the really cool controls in the Wii version). But it's a damn good game. In fact, it's probably the best single-player game of the year. Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about its innovation. It's an utterly awesome game, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Yes, there is. There's an awesome new story to experience, great new art direction to enjoy, fantastic new music to listen to, complicated new dungeons to solve, and so on. It's 60 new hours of Zelda goodness. That's all I want out of a Zelda game, and Twilight Princess delivers in truckloads.
After playing the very simplistic version of golf in Wii Sports, I just can't go back to those other golf games. Wii Sports has spoiled them for me. It just feels weird pushing the buttons to swing the iron... Don't play any Wii golfing games if you like golf games on other consoles!
Can't wait for a real golfing game on the Wii.
I don't think you actually control the speed in Wii Sports Boxing at all. You control when you punch, but I think the speed of the punches is always the same.
I think a lightsaber game would definitely be possible. Wii Sports Baseball does a pretty good job of tracking the controller's orientation.
The more you play Wii Sports, the more you figure out how to play the games. Did you know you can slice the ball in Wii Tennis?
Interestingly, Wii Sports Tennis does care. In addition to forehand, backhand and how or high balls, it's possible to slice the ball. How to do it is not immediately obvious. I first saw this when the better computer players started doing it, and I've figured out how to do it: You turn the controller while hitting the ball as if you were to slice it in real tennis. Well... D'oh.
It takes a bit of trying, but it works.
It's pretty funny to shoot balls like that, because they curve, and when they hit the ground, they change their direction - sometimes dramatically, which makes it really hard to time returns.
Similarly, when first playing Wii Sports Boxing, most people start flaying the controllers in every which direction. Sooner or later, one player goes down and doesn't come up again, and the other declares himself the winner. At first, I thought this game sucked, but after playing it for a bit, I figured out that there's a huge amount of tactics and precision involved. Covering and evading is a lot more important than hitting. Avoid the other person's hits and hit back when he lets his cover down. Hit with precision: If you move your body sideways and your hands up and down, it's possible to hit very specific parts of the other person's body, thus going through his or her cover. When I play the game with my brother, nobody ever goes down since if the other player knows how to avoid being hit, it's very hard to knock him out. It's a lot of fun to play the game like that, lots of tactics and precision involved.
Oh, and by the way, Wii Sports is my personal Game of the Year. Yeah, Zelda is a much better game in every way, except... Playing Wii Sports against a few pals is the most fun I've ever had with a console. Nothing comes even close. No Dance Dance Revolution, no Guitar Hero, no Bomberman, no Mario Party, no Donkey Konga, no Super Monkey Ball. Nothing.
Will the Mac game market suffer? Sure. The reason is simply: it's always been a really small market. People never bought Macs for gaming, but some Mac users wanted games. Porting games to Macs is a huge undertaking, so only few games got ported, and they always arrived late. Mac users only bought Mac games because they had no other choice (apart from a few truly great Mac games).
Obviously, being able to run Windows games on the Mac (and not having to wait for a crappy port a year later, if one is even planned) is a huge advantage.
All of that does not apply to the rest of the Mac software market. The Mac software market is not small, it doesn't have "ports," there are lots of great Mac-only apps, cross-platform apps are generally developed for both platforms at the same time (and often have unique Mac-only features), and so on. The Mac game market may be pretty much dead. The Mac app market remains unscathed.
Mac users bought Mac games because it was the only choice. They bought Mac apps because they wanted to.
Now that there's another choice, they won't buy Mac games anymore, but they'll still buy Mac apps.
Heh, that's funny. There are lots of things to criticise about Apple, but they absolutely don't "just throw [latest gadget] into a product as a checkbox filler." One of the main criticism of iPods is that "they don't contain feature X found in many other mp3 players." Compared to players from Creative or even to the Zune, the iPod is underfeatured. That's because unless the feature makes some kind of sense and can be integrated into the "iPod experience" in a moderately non-confusing way, Apple won't do it.
Can you give me anything about the iPod that's actually innovative, rather than "Same as competitor's product but looks sexier".Uhm... That's an entirely different question. Did Apple introduce anything new with the iPod? In a way, no. They took features away compared to other MP3 players, which is what grandparent was saying: Apple doesn't just throwin features left and right. What they did was make the iPod easy and efficient to use (especially compared to other players at the time).
So... you're not even contradicting what grandparent has said. You have a valid point (the iPod's features aren't that innovative), but it actually agrees with grandparent's point (Apple doesn't just add the latest fancy feature to the iPod whenever it gets the chance), as far as I can tell.
Mac OS X's firmware does not advertise the existence of TPM. You can't use it on Mac OS X, and more recent Macs don't seem to contain it at all.
Wrong argument. If you're surrounded by a bunch of unarmed muggers, giving them a baseball bat is most certainly almost as bad as just giving them your wallet.
And how in the world is pointing out facts FUD? So people should not be allowed to know that the Linux kernel contains support for TPM?
You know, in every Slashdot story about the current-gen consoles, there are a few of these strange anti-Wii comments. I always wonder: Have these people actually played a Wii? Are they immune to fun? Are they eight-year-olds who are offended by a game if they can't impress their pals by ripping off a zombie's head and spilling his guts all over the place? Others have already pointed out that you've got your facts wrong - you're comparing games and weirdly, the PS3 comes out ahead - but I have to add to that and ask: Who in their right mind can play Wii Sports with a few friends and not have a blast?
I'm what most people would consider a hard-core gamer. I got probably about 50 different consoles and gaming handhelds. No other console has ever inspired the kind of reaction that the Wii has.
TPM opens the doors for truly draconian DRM systems. This potential does not exist in Windows XP, and it does not exist in Mac OS X. Obviously, if there's ever an application which makes use of TPM in Linux in such a way, people are free to not use it - just as you can use iTunes without downloading DRM'd music. Nevertheless, since people often criticise iTunes for its support for DRM'd music, these same people should know that Linux contains the technology for DRM which puts anything iTunes can do to shame.
From a purist's standpoint, support for TPM alone is almost as bad as actual DRM using TPM, because without TPM, DRM is much less threatening. TPM can be used to take control of data away from you. Without TPM, this is much harder.
Yes, TPM has positive uses. That doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing, all said and done.