There are funny games out there (Portal, Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi, Simpsons Games), they just aren't a majority. The same way there are funny TV shows and movies, but they also aren't a majority. Although, I will say that it appear that humorous games make up a smaller percent than TV or Movies, it's still the case that it's just sort of a sub-genre.
That being said, one reason, I feel, is that game genres are based on gameplay, not content. People shop for RPGs and FPSs, not comedy games and drama games.
Additionally, many games, like gamers, tend to take themself too seriously. Some of the funniest moments I've had in gaming are when the joke is directed at the gamer ("I go on message boards and complain about games I've never played!" from Super Paper Mario), or when they really unexpectedly break the fourth wall (Ocelot's "And don't you dare use auto-fire, or I'll know!" from MGS).
Judging by the video game message boards, a lot of gamers take themself really, really seriously, (the type that go on message boards and complain about games they've never played) and wouldn't appreciate having fun poked at them, or the fourth wall broken.
Either way, I don't see it as a problem. There are humorous games out there, they just aren't a majority. Like every other medium.:)
My thoughts on this. First of all, the part is irrelevant, they have no chance of electoral success, they probably will only even run candidates in a handful of ridings. Even if they did run in all 308 ridings, they have no chance to get more than, at best, 5% of the vote in their best riding (and even that is a stretch). Our system, which has been confirmed by several recent referendums, essentially makes any votes for them "wasted" in a few ways. I'd still recommend anyone vote for them, if they support their principles.
As for my thoughts on copyrights in general. I'm a generally libertarian leaning Conservative. I don't like how the RIAA/MPAA is conducting themselves. I don't like the abuses of patent systems, and I think copyright lasts way too long. I'd be completely in favor of reform of those.
That being said, I feel the general idea of copyrights and patents is a sound one. IMO, people should have ownership over ideas and works that they create. An aspect of ownership is the right to deny use of your property to others.
I see this in a similar manner as land ownership. Land ownership is a similarly abstract concept. One can only "own" land based on the collective agreement of the population, and the government. Likewise, even if one is not using a tract of land one owns, one can deny access to it from others.
That being said, like a typical goodthinking Slashbot, I hate DRM, think the RIAA/MPAA are a bunch of thugs, and feel that copyrights last way too long (I think patents last about the right length, but stupid crap shouldn't be patentable). I don't, however, feel this gives people a right to pirate whatever they feel like, nor do I think it invalidates the idea of copyright, in general. (For my background, I'm a 22 year old white Canadian male who buys his games, music and movies, and buys a great deal of them.)
I'd be interested in seeing well thought out disagreements, of course. I'm also sure my thoughts and my analogy could be worded much better. I'm usually terrible at getting my point across.
Yup. I used to be a big supporter of electoral reform, even as a Tory, (I favored MMP). While I still wish to see the system change, I don't want to ram it down anyone's throat, I feel the referendums, while disappointing, pretty much settled the matter for quite some time.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"? Time was created at the big bang. There is no "before time began". Before time, there is no before. A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago. Maybe very little like that. Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon. Hmmm... ok, very little like that, too. How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number? Yes, more like that. You get the gist. Time is part of our universe. The big bang created the universe, space and time together. If there was no big bang, then maybe there was something before whatever was then. But if there was a big bang, there was nothing before that.
So basically what you're saying is that in the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.
And you wonder why people have a hard time grasping current big bang theory.:-)
The basic idea is that Nintendo, as a company, has built up good feelings from me, and other uses, where as the RIAA has not. This is from a combination of their actions, enjoying their product, and such. Basically, they feel almost like a friend or something, so when they do something one disagrees with, the build up good feelings generally override that.
Same as Apple. You'll find plenty of Apple users who will be quite willing to say they hate some of the legal actions that Apple has taken, but in general, their experience with Apple hardware and software greatly overrides that.
The MPAA/RIAA have done nothing of the sort to build loyalty and good feelings (not that I'm really sure what that entails, but some companies are good at it, others are not). And most people see them as nothing but a bunch of jerks who sue grandmas and little kids, make you sit through stupid anti-piracy warnings on your legit bought DVDs and try to install rootkits on your computer.
My personal thoughts are the best way to counter piracy is to make people like you. I can only really give examples from my experience, as I don't really know other people's piracy habits.
I am an avid gamer of all systems, although I rarely game on my PC anymore, as it's typically too much of a hassle with configurations and DRM. The DRM decreases my chance of buying a PC game, (especially if there's a good console version) and makes me more likely to pirate. As an example, I bought a copy of Spore. My bought copy of Spore thought I was pirating it. After screwing around for a bit, I decided to say screw it, and downloaded a pirated copy from the Pirate Bay. As a result, were I actually interested in the Sims 3, I feel I'd be much more likely to pirate it, now that EA's ticked me off.
I have around 200+ console + handheld games, none of them pirated. Several of my systems (DS + PSP in particular) have very active "homebrew" communities, that make it very easy to acquire "backups". Despite the ease of which I know I could get handheld games for free, I choose to buy them, because I derive a great deal of value in having the original box + manual + disc/card to display, and because I actually like the companies.
Pirating a game from, say, Nintendo to me would feel like kicking Mario in the groin. Nintendo (and others) have brought me such good times, that they seem almost like a friend. The few times I've even considered pirating DS games, I've felt very uneasy, the thought of it feels just wrong, to me. The RIAA, on the other hand, does not invoke such warm, fuzzy feelings to just about anyone. Perhaps if they stopped suing so many people, and installing rootkits on people's computers, they might have some more goodwill left.
Those are just my thoughts. I know plenty of people don't derive the same satisfaction from having a big collection of legit games/music/whatever, but I really think that if the RIAA stopped suing people and instead built up a strong relationship with its customers like many gaming companies, and Apple, they might see similar loyalty and less piracy.
Also, suing little kids is stupid on a logical level. I pirated plenty of software when I was around 12 or so because I had no money. Ten years later, I have plenty of disposable income, and provide the entertainment industries with many thousands of dollars in revenue a year.
Heh, I feel like I just got some random notes of mine handed back, graded as an essay. You a teacher or professor or something by chance, hehe.:)
Eh, I wasn't trying really to make a point, just sort of letting thoughts wander out of my brain. When I'm actually trying (ie: essay writing), I can effectively make actual points, support them and such. When I'm not trying, especially when I don't even really have a specific point to make, my thoughts appear just as jumbled and disorganized as they do in my head.:)
The general gist of what I was attempting to say is that, while there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, it is just that. I think there was probably electoral fraud.
And yeah, this election can be compared to others, in that people are voting. When people vote, weird stuff can and has happened. To what degree it can be compared to others, I'm not prepared to say, having little knowledge of Iran, the Iranian political system, or generally of politics in the region.
Anyway, thanks for marking my disorganized thoughts I spewed out in between playing Zelda on my Wii, hehe. Was interesting.:)
I actually pretty much agree with what you've said. My post was pretty much a jumbled collection of my thoughts. The basic idea that I was saying is that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence of tampering, but nothing I haven't seen in legit elections. I think there was some degree of tampering, either in outright fraud, or intimidation, but I hate jumping to conclusions, and (even with Iran) I prefer to take an "innocent until proven guilty" approach.
I'm not speaking as an expert on Iran. I don't know a heck of a lot about Iran. I think there was probably some tampering, but I would leave the ultimate call on that for someone who has great experience with Iranian issues, and especially politics and political outcomes. Jumping to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is usually not a good idea.
Gods, I am terrible at getting my ideas out concisely. TLDR: I largely agree with you, but like caution.
Except that you have good transit systems and are counting around 30M fewer votes.
From what I understand, Iran has a good, or at least decent, transit system, (they aren't a third world country) and a decent communication grid.
Having 4x more votes means nothing. They could easily have 4x (or more) counters.
The US could hand count over 100m ballots in the same time frame, if you only had one election at a time, like Canada. Because you have a FREAKING CRAP TON of elections (President, Senate, House, State Senate, State House, DA, Judge, School Board, Official State Dog Walker) and often several referendums all at one time, hand counting becomes impractical. BTW, I am not bashing having so many elections, just pointing out that it is the major reason why hand counting is impractical in the US.
As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries, over the past hundred years or so. I see a lot of people jumping to conclusions based on some evidence, and not all necessarily means the election was tampered with.
Oddly, I've found a lot of people take the demonstrations in the street to be indication of fraud. What it is is indication of the belief in fraud. I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election, that doesn't mean the election was tampered with (and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay.)
Several other stuff looks at odd vote shifting patterns, specifically the almost total abandonment of this one candidate in favor of the President. That is unusual, and calls to be looked into, but it's far from unprecedented. Quebec, in particular, has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another.
Another thing is the "rule" that as turnout goes up, the reformers do better. I've seen countless "rules" made in politics, only to be broken, because voters can act weird sometimes. It would be bucking the trend, but again, not definitive proof.
Overall, there is some evidence to suggest there may have been fraud, but as of yet, I've yet to see any "smoking gun". I saw similar analysis "prove" Kerry really won in 2004, and that didn't really amount to anything.
Looking at the whole situation, my gut tells me that there probably was some tampering, either deliberate or systematic, most likely in the process of actually voting. Basically, I think the strange results are most likely, if anything, the result of intimidation, either direct (guy waving around AK-47) or indirect (ie, Ahmed the voter chose the president because of a climate of fear).
It's very possible that Ahmadinejad won legit, even if his vote total was padded due to intimidation or result tampering. It's also very possible that there's a climate of fear in Iran, that essentially prevents a truly fair and free election from occurring. I honestly don't know much about Iran, so these are just my thoughts from being a (mostly Canadian) politics geek.
In case it's not clear, I'm not defending the Iranian results, only suggesting that I've not seen any "smoking gun" type proof, only "unusual" results, which can still happen in a free and fair election.
We hand count around 10M votes in Canada in a few hours each federal election (which is around once a year these days....) You can say "well, that's Canada and this is Iran", but Iranians have the same hands Canadians do. (Well, minus those cut off due to Sharia, if Iran practices that.)
There's a good chance the election was manipulated but that's no indication at all.
Oh, I agree, there is a place for graphical wankfests, and Dead Rising does rock.:) Dead Rising is the perfect example of why developing a game specifically for a system is the best way. Dead Rising takes advantage of the 360's power, and does not work so well on the Wii. OTOH, stuff like Tiger Woods is showing why motion control can kick serious ass. (On that note, I never really got the point behind those "press the button on the line" golf games. I don't think that's anything like RL golf.)
On the motion control, I couldn't agree more. Third parties complain their games don't sell well on the Wii, but the primary problem (other than an extreme lack of effort) is most don't seem to "get" the Wiimote. Waggle is best used in specific, limited ways (Galaxy does this great, only really using waggle for spin attacking), not as an entire control scheme. The Wiimote + Nunchuk can work perfectly fine as a traditional controller, with a waggle being an added button or two.
Making motion sensing the basis of a game can make sense though, Tiger Woods is the perfect example.
The real, underused, revolution of the Wiimote is the IR pointer. Full games can be based around this, the Pikmin Wiimake is a good example. It's pretty much like having a mouse and a gamepad at the same time.
More what I mean, is a semi-upgrade, with both forward and backward-compatible games.
For instance, they could release Wii games that when played on a Wii HD would use the extra power only to go HD, a few HD-only games, and of course, standard Wii games, with no HD benefit, just like GBC games could usually be played on a Green-and black GB, just without color.
Yeah, what's even worse, is the people who bought "fullscreen" movies ("Ah don like movies not usin' all mah TV") are now stretching them to 16:9, getting the worst of everything.
I'm still amazed that Wal-Mart has managed to sell any HDTVs or BD-Players. The last time I went there they had one of those Blu-Ray vs. DVD comparison BDs playing on a 52" TV, hooked up by SD cables, letterboxed to 4:3 by the BD-player, and then stretched to 16:9 by the TV. I think I almost vomited. Some of the overheard comments included, unsurprisingly:
"I _think_ I can tell a little difference" and "You know, I think my TV from the '80s looks better."
The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles. Sure it was highly underutilized for that, but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be. See Castlevania:SotN for a shining example.
For some reason, I've always been under the belief that the PS1's 2D performance sucked, horribly, possibly worse than the SNES. I don't know where I got that idea from though, and the only 2D PS1 game I played was Toomba. Been meaning to try SotN for a while though. Downloaded it through PSN on my PS3, but haven't touched it yet.:(
Either way, in retrospect, I wish the PS1/N64 generation had focused more on 2D, but I very much remember everyone going gaga over anything with the 3D! moniker attatched to it, even if it wasn't really 3D (Sonic 3D Blast).
Component (Red/Green/Blue/Red/White) cables will do HD just fine (although very few sets will support 1080p via component) I think you were looking for composite as the crummy SD cable type. (yellow/red/white)
I still like coax as a cable far more than HDMI/DVI. Before you say it doesn't have the bandwidth to send full digital HD signals, how do you think you get all those HD channels into your DVR? RG6 has plenty of bandwidth, and is far more durable.
Yeah, I meant the 3-pronged one, not the 5-pronged. Composite and component as words are too similar for someone like me.:D I have my PS2/Wii hooked up by the 5-pronger, haven't touched the 3-prong cable for a few years.
I'm not too cably-inclined, but I do know I love HDMI. While I understand there is some DRM concerns about it, or something, the idea of a single, USB-style cable to hook stuff up is amazingly nice.
Fair enough, but I still don't see why that would necessitate another console generation.
There is advancement in the Wii, much of it. It's just in a different direction than usual, and limited advancement in the direction of the PS360. (ie, they did upgrade the hardware a bit so now almost all games support 480p and widescreen, they did do some limited internet and DLC support, they have wireless controllers).
The advancement is the motion control, and it's worked quite well. Sure some games overuse it, others made it look bad, etc, but the same can be said for early inroads in any field (many, many 2600 and PS1 games sucked ass). Looking at what Nintendo does with it in Galaxy and such, shows that while often more subtle, it can add quite a bit when used in limited and intelligent quantities. They could have released it as a Gamecube add-on, except then no one would have bought it, and the other legacy problems (firmware, internet, wires, etc) would have remained.
Either way, I think sales show that Nintendo certainly picked up on a good percentage of people who wished advancement in a different field, other than pure horsepower. That's a good thing, IMO. I have a 360 + PS3 for when I want to play some Halo or MGS4, but the Wii provides a different, unique, and thoroughly fun experience, and I quite like variety.
I'm sort of rambling at this point, but the TLDR is, I can see where you're coming from, but I don't see why that necessitates another console generation, especially from Sony/MS.
I'd strongly disagree that all current consoles suck. Just for disclosure, I have all 7 Current (PC, DS, PSP, PS2 + 3 Consoles) game systems plus many games for all, but still lean toward being a Nintendo fan(boy).
Considering all of this generation of consoles suck.
Wii: Poor graphics, and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.
I'd strongly disagree that "graphics suck" on the Wii. The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox. The original Xbox that people were gushing about its "amazing graphics" just a few years ago. If said graphics were good enough then, they are good enough now. I still play PS2/GC/XBX games around as much as their successors, and do not find the graphics limiting or sucky.
Actually the only generations that I tend to feel the graphics do suck on, are the 2600 and PS1 generations. (NES if you really are demanding). The most primitive 2D and 3D graphics. Beyond those, all systems have had graphics ranging from good (Wii, SNES, Genesis, GC, PS2) to amazing (PS3, 360). And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics. Good 2D > primitive 3D. OTOH, the PS1/N64 was the source of a great deal of innovation, because of the new technology.
Shovelware comes with being the market leader. The PS2, PS1, NES and 2600 are infamous for having tons of shovelware. Just don't buy it. A new console wouldn't change the shovelware situation.
Xbox 360: Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.
Fair criticism, though I have heard the most recent ones are semi-reliable. However, this is justification for a new model, a Slim 360, perhaps, not an Xbox 720.
PS3: A BD player that can also play a few games.
Largely accurate in 2007. Not so much in 2009. There are PLENTY of good PS3 games, many of which are exclusive (MGS4, KZ2, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted, etc.)
The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.
I fail to see why. Actually, I don't really see any benefit from another set of consoles, almost at all. Other than even more mind blowingly amazing (and expensive) graphics, I fail to see what would be gained. None of your problems would be addressed, except perhaps the 360 reliability. The market leader would still get shovelware, and the PS4 may or may not have the games you want. I feel, and the sales of the Wii back up, that graphics became "good enough" with the PS2 generation, and moving beyond that is rather excessive, especially when only something like 30% of Americans have an HDTV and I'd wager most of them can't hook it up correctly. (Next time I see a 4:3 screen stretched to 16:9, or a store's BD-Player hooked up to an HDTV by SD component cables, I think I will cry.)
I have 3 HDTVs, so I'd sort of like an HD-capable Wii, preferably like a GBC (IE, Wii 1.5, not Wii 2). But the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.
Yeah, and while having all three consoles (and many games for all), I play my Wii the most, both for Virtual Console, Gamecube and native Wii games. I love all my systems (ye gods, I sound like a parent with kids), but I play with my Wii the most. I usually spend some time playing with my Wii before I go to bed, as it's more relaxing and helps me fall asleep. My PS3 and 360 get more use when a big game comes out, but I find myself coming back to my Wii after some time passes.
Your anecdote doesn't equal data, and neither does mine. Though, most of the sales data I see put Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii, Brawl and Galaxy still among the top sellers, with Wii Fit usually in the top 5 and MK Wii in the top 10. If they aren't played, they sure sell well though.
Despite all this talk of Twitter, I still haven't figured out what, if anything, Twitter actually is. The two main descriptions that keep recurring are:
A reimplementation of IRC over HTML and A site where people talk about how great Twitter is, and occasionally panic over current events
Does that pretty much sum Twitter for non, uh, twits up?
Slashdot Mirror
There are funny games out there (Portal, Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi, Simpsons Games), they just aren't a majority. The same way there are funny TV shows and movies, but they also aren't a majority. Although, I will say that it appear that humorous games make up a smaller percent than TV or Movies, it's still the case that it's just sort of a sub-genre.
That being said, one reason, I feel, is that game genres are based on gameplay, not content. People shop for RPGs and FPSs, not comedy games and drama games.
Additionally, many games, like gamers, tend to take themself too seriously. Some of the funniest moments I've had in gaming are when the joke is directed at the gamer ("I go on message boards and complain about games I've never played!" from Super Paper Mario), or when they really unexpectedly break the fourth wall (Ocelot's "And don't you dare use auto-fire, or I'll know!" from MGS).
Judging by the video game message boards, a lot of gamers take themself really, really seriously, (the type that go on message boards and complain about games they've never played) and wouldn't appreciate having fun poked at them, or the fourth wall broken.
Either way, I don't see it as a problem. There are humorous games out there, they just aren't a majority. Like every other medium. :)
My thoughts on this. First of all, the part is irrelevant, they have no chance of electoral success, they probably will only even run candidates in a handful of ridings. Even if they did run in all 308 ridings, they have no chance to get more than, at best, 5% of the vote in their best riding (and even that is a stretch). Our system, which has been confirmed by several recent referendums, essentially makes any votes for them "wasted" in a few ways. I'd still recommend anyone vote for them, if they support their principles.
As for my thoughts on copyrights in general. I'm a generally libertarian leaning Conservative. I don't like how the RIAA/MPAA is conducting themselves. I don't like the abuses of patent systems, and I think copyright lasts way too long. I'd be completely in favor of reform of those.
That being said, I feel the general idea of copyrights and patents is a sound one. IMO, people should have ownership over ideas and works that they create. An aspect of ownership is the right to deny use of your property to others.
I see this in a similar manner as land ownership. Land ownership is a similarly abstract concept. One can only "own" land based on the collective agreement of the population, and the government. Likewise, even if one is not using a tract of land one owns, one can deny access to it from others.
That being said, like a typical goodthinking Slashbot, I hate DRM, think the RIAA/MPAA are a bunch of thugs, and feel that copyrights last way too long (I think patents last about the right length, but stupid crap shouldn't be patentable). I don't, however, feel this gives people a right to pirate whatever they feel like, nor do I think it invalidates the idea of copyright, in general. (For my background, I'm a 22 year old white Canadian male who buys his games, music and movies, and buys a great deal of them.)
I'd be interested in seeing well thought out disagreements, of course. I'm also sure my thoughts and my analogy could be worded much better. I'm usually terrible at getting my point across.
Yup. I used to be a big supporter of electoral reform, even as a Tory, (I favored MMP). While I still wish to see the system change, I don't want to ram it down anyone's throat, I feel the referendums, while disappointing, pretty much settled the matter for quite some time.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that there is no "before the big bang"? Time was created at the big bang. There is no "before time began". Before time, there is no before. A bit like there was no spelling bee champion 65 million years ago. Maybe very little like that. Or maybe a bit like asking what is west of the moon. Hmmm... ok, very little like that, too. How about like asking at what date 13 became a prime number? Yes, more like that. You get the gist. Time is part of our universe. The big bang created the universe, space and time together.
If there was no big bang, then maybe there was something before whatever was then. But if there was a big bang, there was nothing before that.
So basically what you're saying is that in the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.
And you wonder why people have a hard time grasping current big bang theory. :-)
DO NOT WANT
The basic idea is that Nintendo, as a company, has built up good feelings from me, and other uses, where as the RIAA has not. This is from a combination of their actions, enjoying their product, and such. Basically, they feel almost like a friend or something, so when they do something one disagrees with, the build up good feelings generally override that.
Same as Apple. You'll find plenty of Apple users who will be quite willing to say they hate some of the legal actions that Apple has taken, but in general, their experience with Apple hardware and software greatly overrides that.
The MPAA/RIAA have done nothing of the sort to build loyalty and good feelings (not that I'm really sure what that entails, but some companies are good at it, others are not). And most people see them as nothing but a bunch of jerks who sue grandmas and little kids, make you sit through stupid anti-piracy warnings on your legit bought DVDs and try to install rootkits on your computer.
My personal thoughts are the best way to counter piracy is to make people like you. I can only really give examples from my experience, as I don't really know other people's piracy habits.
I am an avid gamer of all systems, although I rarely game on my PC anymore, as it's typically too much of a hassle with configurations and DRM. The DRM decreases my chance of buying a PC game, (especially if there's a good console version) and makes me more likely to pirate. As an example, I bought a copy of Spore. My bought copy of Spore thought I was pirating it. After screwing around for a bit, I decided to say screw it, and downloaded a pirated copy from the Pirate Bay. As a result, were I actually interested in the Sims 3, I feel I'd be much more likely to pirate it, now that EA's ticked me off.
I have around 200+ console + handheld games, none of them pirated. Several of my systems (DS + PSP in particular) have very active "homebrew" communities, that make it very easy to acquire "backups". Despite the ease of which I know I could get handheld games for free, I choose to buy them, because I derive a great deal of value in having the original box + manual + disc/card to display, and because I actually like the companies.
Pirating a game from, say, Nintendo to me would feel like kicking Mario in the groin. Nintendo (and others) have brought me such good times, that they seem almost like a friend. The few times I've even considered pirating DS games, I've felt very uneasy, the thought of it feels just wrong, to me. The RIAA, on the other hand, does not invoke such warm, fuzzy feelings to just about anyone. Perhaps if they stopped suing so many people, and installing rootkits on people's computers, they might have some more goodwill left.
Those are just my thoughts. I know plenty of people don't derive the same satisfaction from having a big collection of legit games/music/whatever, but I really think that if the RIAA stopped suing people and instead built up a strong relationship with its customers like many gaming companies, and Apple, they might see similar loyalty and less piracy.
Also, suing little kids is stupid on a logical level. I pirated plenty of software when I was around 12 or so because I had no money. Ten years later, I have plenty of disposable income, and provide the entertainment industries with many thousands of dollars in revenue a year.
Heh, I feel like I just got some random notes of mine handed back, graded as an essay. You a teacher or professor or something by chance, hehe. :)
Eh, I wasn't trying really to make a point, just sort of letting thoughts wander out of my brain. When I'm actually trying (ie: essay writing), I can effectively make actual points, support them and such. When I'm not trying, especially when I don't even really have a specific point to make, my thoughts appear just as jumbled and disorganized as they do in my head. :)
The general gist of what I was attempting to say is that, while there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, it is just that. I think there was probably electoral fraud.
And yeah, this election can be compared to others, in that people are voting. When people vote, weird stuff can and has happened. To what degree it can be compared to others, I'm not prepared to say, having little knowledge of Iran, the Iranian political system, or generally of politics in the region.
Anyway, thanks for marking my disorganized thoughts I spewed out in between playing Zelda on my Wii, hehe. Was interesting. :)
"As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries, over the past hundred years or so."
Thats a long time to be a student.
Well, you know us university students, we hate to grow up and get a job.
Now to party like it's 1909 again!
I actually pretty much agree with what you've said. My post was pretty much a jumbled collection of my thoughts. The basic idea that I was saying is that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence of tampering, but nothing I haven't seen in legit elections. I think there was some degree of tampering, either in outright fraud, or intimidation, but I hate jumping to conclusions, and (even with Iran) I prefer to take an "innocent until proven guilty" approach.
I'm not speaking as an expert on Iran. I don't know a heck of a lot about Iran. I think there was probably some tampering, but I would leave the ultimate call on that for someone who has great experience with Iranian issues, and especially politics and political outcomes. Jumping to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is usually not a good idea.
Gods, I am terrible at getting my ideas out concisely. TLDR: I largely agree with you, but like caution.
Except that you have good transit systems and are counting around 30M fewer votes.
From what I understand, Iran has a good, or at least decent, transit system, (they aren't a third world country) and a decent communication grid.
Having 4x more votes means nothing. They could easily have 4x (or more) counters.
The US could hand count over 100m ballots in the same time frame, if you only had one election at a time, like Canada. Because you have a FREAKING CRAP TON of elections (President, Senate, House, State Senate, State House, DA, Judge, School Board, Official State Dog Walker) and often several referendums all at one time, hand counting becomes impractical. BTW, I am not bashing having so many elections, just pointing out that it is the major reason why hand counting is impractical in the US.
As a PoliSci student, I've spent a ton of time looking at election data for many countries, over the past hundred years or so. I see a lot of people jumping to conclusions based on some evidence, and not all necessarily means the election was tampered with.
Oddly, I've found a lot of people take the demonstrations in the street to be indication of fraud. What it is is indication of the belief in fraud. I'm pretty sure some people protested after Kerry lost the 2004 US election, that doesn't mean the election was tampered with (and yeah, I know I'll get some conspiracy nut reply to that with an essay.)
Several other stuff looks at odd vote shifting patterns, specifically the almost total abandonment of this one candidate in favor of the President. That is unusual, and calls to be looked into, but it's far from unprecedented. Quebec, in particular, has a history of some pretty wild swings from one party to another.
Another thing is the "rule" that as turnout goes up, the reformers do better. I've seen countless "rules" made in politics, only to be broken, because voters can act weird sometimes. It would be bucking the trend, but again, not definitive proof.
Overall, there is some evidence to suggest there may have been fraud, but as of yet, I've yet to see any "smoking gun". I saw similar analysis "prove" Kerry really won in 2004, and that didn't really amount to anything.
Looking at the whole situation, my gut tells me that there probably was some tampering, either deliberate or systematic, most likely in the process of actually voting. Basically, I think the strange results are most likely, if anything, the result of intimidation, either direct (guy waving around AK-47) or indirect (ie, Ahmed the voter chose the president because of a climate of fear).
It's very possible that Ahmadinejad won legit, even if his vote total was padded due to intimidation or result tampering. It's also very possible that there's a climate of fear in Iran, that essentially prevents a truly fair and free election from occurring. I honestly don't know much about Iran, so these are just my thoughts from being a (mostly Canadian) politics geek.
In case it's not clear, I'm not defending the Iranian results, only suggesting that I've not seen any "smoking gun" type proof, only "unusual" results, which can still happen in a free and fair election.
We hand count around 10M votes in Canada in a few hours each federal election (which is around once a year these days....) You can say "well, that's Canada and this is Iran", but Iranians have the same hands Canadians do. (Well, minus those cut off due to Sharia, if Iran practices that.)
There's a good chance the election was manipulated but that's no indication at all.
Oh, I agree, there is a place for graphical wankfests, and Dead Rising does rock. :) Dead Rising is the perfect example of why developing a game specifically for a system is the best way. Dead Rising takes advantage of the 360's power, and does not work so well on the Wii. OTOH, stuff like Tiger Woods is showing why motion control can kick serious ass. (On that note, I never really got the point behind those "press the button on the line" golf games. I don't think that's anything like RL golf.)
On the motion control, I couldn't agree more. Third parties complain their games don't sell well on the Wii, but the primary problem (other than an extreme lack of effort) is most don't seem to "get" the Wiimote. Waggle is best used in specific, limited ways (Galaxy does this great, only really using waggle for spin attacking), not as an entire control scheme. The Wiimote + Nunchuk can work perfectly fine as a traditional controller, with a waggle being an added button or two.
Making motion sensing the basis of a game can make sense though, Tiger Woods is the perfect example.
The real, underused, revolution of the Wiimote is the IR pointer. Full games can be based around this, the Pikmin Wiimake is a good example. It's pretty much like having a mouse and a gamepad at the same time.
More what I mean, is a semi-upgrade, with both forward and backward-compatible games.
For instance, they could release Wii games that when played on a Wii HD would use the extra power only to go HD, a few HD-only games, and of course, standard Wii games, with no HD benefit, just like GBC games could usually be played on a Green-and black GB, just without color.
Yeah, what's even worse, is the people who bought "fullscreen" movies ("Ah don like movies not usin' all mah TV") are now stretching them to 16:9, getting the worst of everything.
I'm still amazed that Wal-Mart has managed to sell any HDTVs or BD-Players. The last time I went there they had one of those Blu-Ray vs. DVD comparison BDs playing on a 52" TV, hooked up by SD cables, letterboxed to 4:3 by the BD-player, and then stretched to 16:9 by the TV. I think I almost vomited. Some of the overheard comments included, unsurprisingly:
"I _think_ I can tell a little difference" and
"You know, I think my TV from the '80s looks better."
The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles. Sure it was highly underutilized for that, but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be. See Castlevania:SotN for a shining example.
For some reason, I've always been under the belief that the PS1's 2D performance sucked, horribly, possibly worse than the SNES. I don't know where I got that idea from though, and the only 2D PS1 game I played was Toomba. Been meaning to try SotN for a while though. Downloaded it through PSN on my PS3, but haven't touched it yet. :(
Either way, in retrospect, I wish the PS1/N64 generation had focused more on 2D, but I very much remember everyone going gaga over anything with the 3D! moniker attatched to it, even if it wasn't really 3D (Sonic 3D Blast).
Component (Red/Green/Blue/Red/White) cables will do HD just fine (although very few sets will support 1080p via component) I think you were looking for composite as the crummy SD cable type. (yellow/red/white)
I still like coax as a cable far more than HDMI/DVI. Before you say it doesn't have the bandwidth to send full digital HD signals, how do you think you get all those HD channels into your DVR? RG6 has plenty of bandwidth, and is far more durable.
Yeah, I meant the 3-pronged one, not the 5-pronged. Composite and component as words are too similar for someone like me. :D I have my PS2/Wii hooked up by the 5-pronger, haven't touched the 3-prong cable for a few years.
I'm not too cably-inclined, but I do know I love HDMI. While I understand there is some DRM concerns about it, or something, the idea of a single, USB-style cable to hook stuff up is amazingly nice.
Fair enough, but I still don't see why that would necessitate another console generation.
There is advancement in the Wii, much of it. It's just in a different direction than usual, and limited advancement in the direction of the PS360. (ie, they did upgrade the hardware a bit so now almost all games support 480p and widescreen, they did do some limited internet and DLC support, they have wireless controllers).
The advancement is the motion control, and it's worked quite well. Sure some games overuse it, others made it look bad, etc, but the same can be said for early inroads in any field (many, many 2600 and PS1 games sucked ass). Looking at what Nintendo does with it in Galaxy and such, shows that while often more subtle, it can add quite a bit when used in limited and intelligent quantities. They could have released it as a Gamecube add-on, except then no one would have bought it, and the other legacy problems (firmware, internet, wires, etc) would have remained.
Either way, I think sales show that Nintendo certainly picked up on a good percentage of people who wished advancement in a different field, other than pure horsepower. That's a good thing, IMO. I have a 360 + PS3 for when I want to play some Halo or MGS4, but the Wii provides a different, unique, and thoroughly fun experience, and I quite like variety.
I'm sort of rambling at this point, but the TLDR is, I can see where you're coming from, but I don't see why that necessitates another console generation, especially from Sony/MS.
I'd strongly disagree that all current consoles suck. Just for disclosure, I have all 7 Current (PC, DS, PSP, PS2 + 3 Consoles) game systems plus many games for all, but still lean toward being a Nintendo fan(boy).
Considering all of this generation of consoles suck.
Wii: Poor graphics, and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.
I'd strongly disagree that "graphics suck" on the Wii. The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox. The original Xbox that people were gushing about its "amazing graphics" just a few years ago. If said graphics were good enough then, they are good enough now. I still play PS2/GC/XBX games around as much as their successors, and do not find the graphics limiting or sucky.
Actually the only generations that I tend to feel the graphics do suck on, are the 2600 and PS1 generations. (NES if you really are demanding). The most primitive 2D and 3D graphics. Beyond those, all systems have had graphics ranging from good (Wii, SNES, Genesis, GC, PS2) to amazing (PS3, 360). And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics. Good 2D > primitive 3D. OTOH, the PS1/N64 was the source of a great deal of innovation, because of the new technology.
Shovelware comes with being the market leader. The PS2, PS1, NES and 2600 are infamous for having tons of shovelware. Just don't buy it. A new console wouldn't change the shovelware situation.
Xbox 360: Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.
Fair criticism, though I have heard the most recent ones are semi-reliable. However, this is justification for a new model, a Slim 360, perhaps, not an Xbox 720.
PS3: A BD player that can also play a few games.
Largely accurate in 2007. Not so much in 2009. There are PLENTY of good PS3 games, many of which are exclusive (MGS4, KZ2, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted, etc.)
The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.
I fail to see why. Actually, I don't really see any benefit from another set of consoles, almost at all. Other than even more mind blowingly amazing (and expensive) graphics, I fail to see what would be gained. None of your problems would be addressed, except perhaps the 360 reliability. The market leader would still get shovelware, and the PS4 may or may not have the games you want. I feel, and the sales of the Wii back up, that graphics became "good enough" with the PS2 generation, and moving beyond that is rather excessive, especially when only something like 30% of Americans have an HDTV and I'd wager most of them can't hook it up correctly. (Next time I see a 4:3 screen stretched to 16:9, or a store's BD-Player hooked up to an HDTV by SD component cables, I think I will cry.)
I have 3 HDTVs, so I'd sort of like an HD-capable Wii, preferably like a GBC (IE, Wii 1.5, not Wii 2). But the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.
I'm sorry, but after reading the title of the article, all I can think about is all that spicy food I ate last night...
My gods, this may just be the greatest ad for a Microsoft product I have ever seen.
Must. Resist. Urge. To try. Bing.
Yeah, and while having all three consoles (and many games for all), I play my Wii the most, both for Virtual Console, Gamecube and native Wii games. I love all my systems (ye gods, I sound like a parent with kids), but I play with my Wii the most. I usually spend some time playing with my Wii before I go to bed, as it's more relaxing and helps me fall asleep. My PS3 and 360 get more use when a big game comes out, but I find myself coming back to my Wii after some time passes.
Your anecdote doesn't equal data, and neither does mine. Though, most of the sales data I see put Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii, Brawl and Galaxy still among the top sellers, with Wii Fit usually in the top 5 and MK Wii in the top 10. If they aren't played, they sure sell well though.
Despite all this talk of Twitter, I still haven't figured out what, if anything, Twitter actually is. The two main descriptions that keep recurring are:
A reimplementation of IRC over HTML and
A site where people talk about how great Twitter is, and occasionally panic over current events
Does that pretty much sum Twitter for non, uh, twits up?
So what this article is saying, is that the Wii provides a "watered down" Parkinson's experience.