The beauty of individual freedoms is that people are free to spend their money on what they like. Perhaps to you a nice car falls lower on the list of importance than a nice chair but for some people - this is reversed. The question is; why do you care? Why do you get so upset over this? Spend your money how you want to spend your money and let other people spends theirs how they want to spend it.
I can only speak for the Madden series as I have only played one of the Sega games but, for the most part, the Madden line is fairly good in regards to only requiring you to understand the most basic aspects of gameplay. The various options that have sprung up in recent versions, stadium maintenance, creating plays, trading players, the draft, etc., can be effectively ignored if you're not interested in.
In terms of on-field gameplay, I would say that playing the game is no more complicated than a game like Tiger Woods golf, especially if you play on Rookie mode. On harder settings, the defense will adjust to your offense and it's critical for you to find holes and audible but on Rookie mode you can just run whatever plays you want. Perhaps someone else can comment on the ease of playing the Sega line.
Spoken like someone who hasn't played the series in any depth. To the casual observer and intellectually shallow person who feels the need to berate anyone who enjoys sports video games and sports in general [in an attempt to feel superior], the Madden series may look like a series of roster updates. This is not the case. I'd explain a number changes that have come about through the years but why bother? You've already judged without any knowledge whatsoever. Go back to thinking you've got some great intellect; your dream world is where you should stay.
Why are you buying games at Target? Specialty shops like Gamestop and EB carry all ESPN games and have price drops in a reasonable timeframe. As far as I can tell, Target sells their games at $50 until they don't have any games left to sell.
Pitch Black was a somewhat enjoyable sci-fi movie, if you haven't seen it. I have yet to see Chronicles of Riddick but TechTV keeps showing a making of the game special, which I haven't watched either.
"When will those companies realize that as a culture, americans are much more prone to throw money at something?"
Funny, I didn't know this had been established. In your in-depth cultural studies of various countries/regions around the world, what culture did you find was second most likely to "throw money at something?" [By the way, your assertion is foolish, at best - judgemental, xenophobic, and prejudiced at worst.]
With that being said, I ordered the G4 demo disc from the Toyota site and while it confirmed that the DVD was on its way, the Prius accessory pack was already listed as out of stock. So if you're interested in G4, don't delay long.
You may have enjoyed the advertising scheme for the launch of the Saturn but it is routinely cited as yet another mistake Sega made at and around the time of the Saturn. Sega's scream commercials had cemented the company into the hearts and minds of teenage boys. The Theatre of the Eye commercials were a bit too avant garde for your typical teenage boy AND they didn't show nearly enough of the games themselves.
I will note that Sega reverted back to the scream commercials for the Saturn some time after launch but it was too late at that point and they had lost that generation of consoles.
I think Sega making a return to the console business is a bad idea. They've burned a generation of gamers with the 32X-Saturn fiasco and the few people who bought the Dreamcast while it was a viable system are sure to have been put off by Sega's abandonment of the platform. So Sega would be left with jumping into a market where there are people jaded to the idea of Sega consoles, which would then leave them to target a younger demographic of gamers who, at that point, wouldn't remember the Dreamcast, 32X, Saturn, or...SegaCD. Nintendo has always had a fairly solid lock on this demographic. I'm not saying it's impossible but it would be a difficult way to get back into the market. Sony broke into the market by appealing to the teen gamer with the PS1. MS broke into the market by appealing to an even older audience, perhaps.
Okay, so you suggest we put equal funds into the search for moss as we put into the search for life that is producing radio signals. Ignoring for a moment the basic problem with your entire argument, that being that private citizens are donating their CPU cycles to SETI because it's not costly to the individual and its of general interest to the non-scientist. Can you propose a way to search for planets that could sustain life in a way that can be distributed the way SETI@Home is and is of enough general interest to spark people's attention and get them to actually download the client?
The point is that the resources spent by government funding for SETI has not been substantial because there is a huge donation coming from individuals. Can you explain how to translate that force to the search for planets that could sustain life?
Did I say something so offensive that you needed to be that rude to me? Certainly there are people who might base their opinions on buying a Mac on a short demo given by one of their neighbors but I do not believe that the majority of people would do that. They're much more likely to base it on what the majority of their friends are using.
Why not discuss the issue instead of trying to insult me [i.e. all your 'get out into the real world' junk]. Honestly, why are you so hostile?
"And your argument seems to be "*I* wouldn't do that, so nobody would."
No, it is not. My argument is that people don't base decisions as to whether to buy hardware that costs over $1000 on just seeing it at their neighbor's house. On the other hand, a Windows user already has the hardware to try out Linux so it's more reasonable to believe that seeing Linux at a neighbor's house would spark interest.
I thought that that point could be derived easily enough from what I wrote but sometimes everything needs to be spelled out for Anonymous Cowards or Ianoo posting anonymously.
Sorry, I don't spend > $1000 on a Mac based on a 10 minute demo from some neighbor. Your argument might be valid for Linux but I don't think it's helping Apple.
And besides, Linux is most fit currently to make inroads in the business market due to the lack of games currently. Most purchasing decisions aren't based on what the neighbor of the CEO or head of IT is running.
"one being that the Japanese are hostile to American firms"
Evidence? Can you cite one survey that shows that the average citizen of Japan is "hostile" towards American firms? People who want to offer the most shallow assessment often cite this "fact" and I highly doubt its accuracy. If anything, the Japanese market has been shown to gobble up most anything that is American. Plenty of fads have spread like wildfire in Japan that have been marketed as being 'big in America.'
As for the XBox controller being huge and that being used by trolls - the XBox is a large piece of hardware. In Japan, space is quite limited for the average person and therefore the form factor of the Gamecube has been one selling point over the XBox.
Now, let's suppose that MS drops Japan. Then game companies are making games that can only be released in 2 of the 3 major markets worldwide. Why would they want to produce a game that can't be sold like that?
Sega has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that, as a company, they cannot compete in the hardware business. I'm not talking about whether they make the best hardware, I'm merely talking about their ability to manage it. I mean, do I even need to mention the 32X? Sega announcing a new console would only lead to you purchasing it and then getting sad when it fails - blaming the dirty proletariat for not supporting Sega's obviously superior platform - when it is in fact Sega's own fault because they haven't ever been able to market a console. The Genesis was a fluke, it sold in spite of Sega's marketing of it. Why don't you just go play your Sega CD? I'm sure a nice game of Sewer Shark would calm you down. Oh, and here's something to pique your interest. Remember back in the Genesis era and Sega was working on the Sega VR system? Well, perhaps the Sega VR attachment for the Genesis is finally going to get released!!! Can you wait? Man, you'll be able to play Streets of Rage 2 with your very own headset! EXCITING!!!
When was the last time you actually went hiking in an area that it was possible to get lost in? Or, should I say, when was the first time?
When I go hiking, I don't do so in order to get away from civilization and technology. I'm not on some sort of retreat in order to calm myself from all the impending technology. I go for the enjoyable physical activity, the companionship of other hikers, and the beautiful views and clean air. Having a few sensors that make your prescence known in the event of an emergency isn't a big deal, at all, to someone who regularly hikes.
By the way, here's something you obviously didn't catch on Star Trek. On most difficult and/or major trails, at the trailhead, there is a log book that hikers are supposed to sign in to before getting on the trail. Guess what - people actually do! They're not concerned about being tracked or having the technology of the pencil and paper ruining their hike! Imagine that!
Go back to watching Star Trek episodes and stop comparing everything you see on the television to issues that you have no say in.
You're an idiot. You made a blanket statement that people watch shows, not networks. You made no caveat about it being true up to a point. You laid it out there as an absolute fact. I point out that there is an exception to this point and your reply is that I am correct but it's not a big enough fact to overcome your great hypothesis. Guess what - your statement is the equivalent of the following:
for all x, P(x) is true.
My statement is the following:
there exists an x, such that ~P(x) is true.
Thus, your statement is false. Thanks for playing and come again. Oh wait, no - don't come again. You're a moron.
"Not exactly. The key point to remember is that people watch shows *not* networks/channels."
Not exactly. If you look at viewing data, you'll see that a significant portion of the population will watch networks - not shows. To understand this look at a show that moves from a time slot where it has a weak lead-in to a slot where it is buffered on both sides by shows that bring high numbers. The show does much better in the better slot and this is because people will stick with networks.
Assuming that the PageRank formula is completely based on total numbers, then you are correct. But based on the fact that it's called a formula, I would guess that there's more to the ranking than just the total number of links to a particular site. With this being the case, your statement that gaming the system cannot overcome raw numbers is incorrect.
For instance, and this is just to prove a point, let's say the PageRank formula counts a link from CNN.com and MSNBC.com as equivalent to 1,000 links from any other domain. Obviously if 1,000 Slashdotters place a link to the Slashdot article [which is probably high, I doubt people care enough to take part in your suggestion] but some person gets a link on CNN and MSNBC somehow, that person is going to win. I would guess that gaming the system can beat a raw numbers attempt if it is focused and has enough knowledge of the PageRank formula.
"I refuse to play Madden because it does some very un-football things like letting you pick a play by receiver. If you're too focused on one receiver getting the ball, you're going to throw a lot of incompletes and ints. Then again, I refused to play Microsoft's NFL game again after I realized that Microsoft just shuts off your defensive ability in the last few minutes of the game."
The plays list the primary receiver on the play. This is just like in the NFL. A quarterback has an option that he looks at first. He then continues to scan his options until he sees an open player or is forced to throw. I don't see how listing your primary receiver in the playbook means you have to focus on a single read.
"This does come from someone who takes the time to see how players move when audibles are called so that I can set up substitutions for a multi-set offense (like lining up in Goalline with my 5WR package so I can call an audible and be in a 5WR formation with the proper personnel while the defense has their goalline squad on the field)."
Realism? How often do you see that happen in a real game?
It may look like the same game to you but to someone who enjoys sports video games, they're really not the same game each year. Some could say that GTA: Vice City was just an update of GTA III. I mean, the premise and basic movement is the same, right? Others could say that Warcraft III was just an update of Warcraft II. Again, same basic idea there - graphical improvements being the noted change to the casual observer. Take any Final Fantasy game - the combat system remains the same throughout - to the person who doesn't play Final Fantasy games.
Why criticize people for buying sports games like this? It's just promoting strife. Realize that people enjoy different types of gaming experiences and move on with your life. Buy the games you want to buy. Oh, and if you're going to make the argument that by EA and Sega spending money to release updated versions of those same games over and over they are taking money away from development into more innovative games - don't bother.
"There will be a number of strict safety measures and chat room moderators in place when the service launches this summer."
"In other words, it won't be any fun, and nobody over the age of 12 is going to buy this."
Anyone over 12 who wants to use video chat wants to do so for genital exposing and/or foul mouthed reasons? That's odd, I wasn't aware our age group was so easily categorized.
Some of the shows on G4 are alright. I used to like their G4TV.com show [probably the dumbest name for a show ever] but on a show I saw recently, one of the women said that she'd never seen any Star Wars movie.
I think that if you're on a channel dedicated to catering to gamers and you haven't seen Star Wars, you might want to. It just makes me wonder about anything that comes out of either of the women on that show [since I don't remember which one hadn't seen Star Wars]. I mean, you don't wonder about wheather Bob Vila has ever installed a toilet, right?
I've got the same reservations about listening to Morgan Webb. First off, she's awkward in front of the camera. Yes, she is attractive but her ability to read cue cards naturally is rather poor. These networks should focus on hiring people who actually play video games regularly and have some training in the television industry as on-air talent. That may be a tall order but part of the reason I think G4 and TechTV don't do as well as they could is because they've got either non-techs working and thus driving people away because they don't know what they're talking about OR they've got people who don't know anything about broadcasting and drive people away with an inability to convey information. TechTV's Screensavers program was once somewhat enjoyable. Leo Laporte has a background in broadcasting and, while not the most technically proficient person, got the job done. Now they've got all these 20-something interns that are designed to put a young face on the network but they do their job like shit. They're really awkward in front of the camera and they don't know a thing about technology.
I guess that's the end of my rant in reply to your one sentence about G4.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
The beauty of individual freedoms is that people are free to spend their money on what they like. Perhaps to you a nice car falls lower on the list of importance than a nice chair but for some people - this is reversed. The question is; why do you care? Why do you get so upset over this? Spend your money how you want to spend your money and let other people spends theirs how they want to spend it.
In terms of on-field gameplay, I would say that playing the game is no more complicated than a game like Tiger Woods golf, especially if you play on Rookie mode. On harder settings, the defense will adjust to your offense and it's critical for you to find holes and audible but on Rookie mode you can just run whatever plays you want. Perhaps someone else can comment on the ease of playing the Sega line.
Spoken like someone who hasn't played the series in any depth. To the casual observer and intellectually shallow person who feels the need to berate anyone who enjoys sports video games and sports in general [in an attempt to feel superior], the Madden series may look like a series of roster updates. This is not the case. I'd explain a number changes that have come about through the years but why bother? You've already judged without any knowledge whatsoever. Go back to thinking you've got some great intellect; your dream world is where you should stay.
Why are you buying games at Target? Specialty shops like Gamestop and EB carry all ESPN games and have price drops in a reasonable timeframe. As far as I can tell, Target sells their games at $50 until they don't have any games left to sell.
Pitch Black was a somewhat enjoyable sci-fi movie, if you haven't seen it. I have yet to see Chronicles of Riddick but TechTV keeps showing a making of the game special, which I haven't watched either.
With that being said, I ordered the G4 demo disc from the Toyota site and while it confirmed that the DVD was on its way, the Prius accessory pack was already listed as out of stock. So if you're interested in G4, don't delay long.
I will note that Sega reverted back to the scream commercials for the Saturn some time after launch but it was too late at that point and they had lost that generation of consoles.
I think Sega making a return to the console business is a bad idea. They've burned a generation of gamers with the 32X-Saturn fiasco and the few people who bought the Dreamcast while it was a viable system are sure to have been put off by Sega's abandonment of the platform. So Sega would be left with jumping into a market where there are people jaded to the idea of Sega consoles, which would then leave them to target a younger demographic of gamers who, at that point, wouldn't remember the Dreamcast, 32X, Saturn, or...SegaCD. Nintendo has always had a fairly solid lock on this demographic. I'm not saying it's impossible but it would be a difficult way to get back into the market. Sony broke into the market by appealing to the teen gamer with the PS1. MS broke into the market by appealing to an even older audience, perhaps.
The point is that the resources spent by government funding for SETI has not been substantial because there is a huge donation coming from individuals. Can you explain how to translate that force to the search for planets that could sustain life?
Why not discuss the issue instead of trying to insult me [i.e. all your 'get out into the real world' junk]. Honestly, why are you so hostile?
I thought that that point could be derived easily enough from what I wrote but sometimes everything needs to be spelled out for Anonymous Cowards or Ianoo posting anonymously.
And besides, Linux is most fit currently to make inroads in the business market due to the lack of games currently. Most purchasing decisions aren't based on what the neighbor of the CEO or head of IT is running.
As for the XBox controller being huge and that being used by trolls - the XBox is a large piece of hardware. In Japan, space is quite limited for the average person and therefore the form factor of the Gamecube has been one selling point over the XBox.
Now, let's suppose that MS drops Japan. Then game companies are making games that can only be released in 2 of the 3 major markets worldwide. Why would they want to produce a game that can't be sold like that?
When I go hiking, I don't do so in order to get away from civilization and technology. I'm not on some sort of retreat in order to calm myself from all the impending technology. I go for the enjoyable physical activity, the companionship of other hikers, and the beautiful views and clean air. Having a few sensors that make your prescence known in the event of an emergency isn't a big deal, at all, to someone who regularly hikes.
By the way, here's something you obviously didn't catch on Star Trek. On most difficult and/or major trails, at the trailhead, there is a log book that hikers are supposed to sign in to before getting on the trail. Guess what - people actually do! They're not concerned about being tracked or having the technology of the pencil and paper ruining their hike! Imagine that!
Go back to watching Star Trek episodes and stop comparing everything you see on the television to issues that you have no say in.
for all x, P(x) is true.
My statement is the following: there exists an x, such that ~P(x) is true.
Thus, your statement is false. Thanks for playing and come again. Oh wait, no - don't come again. You're a moron.
For instance, and this is just to prove a point, let's say the PageRank formula counts a link from CNN.com and MSNBC.com as equivalent to 1,000 links from any other domain. Obviously if 1,000 Slashdotters place a link to the Slashdot article [which is probably high, I doubt people care enough to take part in your suggestion] but some person gets a link on CNN and MSNBC somehow, that person is going to win. I would guess that gaming the system can beat a raw numbers attempt if it is focused and has enough knowledge of the PageRank formula.
Microsoft Inside was a paid advertising spot - an infomercial - which was clearly stated throughout its broadcast.
Why criticize people for buying sports games like this? It's just promoting strife. Realize that people enjoy different types of gaming experiences and move on with your life. Buy the games you want to buy. Oh, and if you're going to make the argument that by EA and Sega spending money to release updated versions of those same games over and over they are taking money away from development into more innovative games - don't bother.
"In other words, it won't be any fun, and nobody over the age of 12 is going to buy this."
Anyone over 12 who wants to use video chat wants to do so for genital exposing and/or foul mouthed reasons? That's odd, I wasn't aware our age group was so easily categorized.
I think that if you're on a channel dedicated to catering to gamers and you haven't seen Star Wars, you might want to. It just makes me wonder about anything that comes out of either of the women on that show [since I don't remember which one hadn't seen Star Wars]. I mean, you don't wonder about wheather Bob Vila has ever installed a toilet, right?
I've got the same reservations about listening to Morgan Webb. First off, she's awkward in front of the camera. Yes, she is attractive but her ability to read cue cards naturally is rather poor. These networks should focus on hiring people who actually play video games regularly and have some training in the television industry as on-air talent. That may be a tall order but part of the reason I think G4 and TechTV don't do as well as they could is because they've got either non-techs working and thus driving people away because they don't know what they're talking about OR they've got people who don't know anything about broadcasting and drive people away with an inability to convey information. TechTV's Screensavers program was once somewhat enjoyable. Leo Laporte has a background in broadcasting and, while not the most technically proficient person, got the job done. Now they've got all these 20-something interns that are designed to put a young face on the network but they do their job like shit. They're really awkward in front of the camera and they don't know a thing about technology.
I guess that's the end of my rant in reply to your one sentence about G4. ;-)