Sorry boss. Here in California we are required to take something called "lunch" and are also entitled to little things called "breaks". We found that it actually was more productive to have leisure activities available on our campus. The employees were less likely to go elsewhere during this time, and were thus more likely to be back from break on time.
Its really win/win. Happier people who are at work more.
Actually, just the opposite. We played Quake3 together a bunch where I work. (Only past tense because we have moved on to other games). Those were some of the best times because of the extremely simple gameplay, very large possible player limit and short amount of time required to play.
Also consider Enemy Territory. I really promotes teamwork, and, best of all, its free. Outside of an FPS, when are you going to be able to feed your boss a rocket then have a good laugh about it later? Just remember, don't get too heated because you are still at work and can't be sexually harrassing people when you make them your bitch.
Ah, its in a book. By the "science fiction grand master" (from the website). We should DEFINITELY always live out our lives by the words of fictional characters.
"You're doing work for people that you are equally qualified with (or more qualified), and it tends to breed disgruntled employees"
PRECISELY the point. You forgot to add "you perceive" between that and you. A PhD tends to come with a big head. A big head does not make for a good team player. So you gotta get that top position or nothing. THAT is where "over qualified" comes from.
Whats the smell? Ah Fear. Yup, you are going to get asked real world questions when you get finished with that PhD. You are going to get messed with. If you expect scholary debate to get things done on the job, thats PRECISELY what they want to find out.
To play to a PhD's strength, a PhD should probably just stay in school forever.
You continue to apologize for them...
You say: Nintendo's given a lot of different reasons for that, and the most recent one seems to be that the Cube is meant as a game console, and that is all. Further reasons would be mostly technical (piracy is harder, the disc is written in a different manner (outside-in rather than inside-out) which should reduce loading times somewhat), but overall it just comes down to this simple answer: ask them. If piracy is the main concern, then of course they lose money by going to DVD, because so far no DVD system has been safe from piracy, and there's no proof that there ever will be one that is. At the same time, they (through Panasonic) have a system capable of playing DVDs in Japan, so why not here? It obviously costs a lot more than the base console because the console uses a non-standard disc format, but it still exists.
But they say:
"If someone buys a DVD and watches it on the Nintendo GameCube, we wouldn't receive any revenue from that. We'd rather have them play our games."
I tend to believe the word from the horse's mouth. You still have not addressed their comment at all. Stop looking around, and just look at what they said. They have no intention of adding value for the positive sake of adding value. They, more than any other first party, don't care about you. They aren't even afraid to admit it anymore.
Just some whats wrong with your whats wrong: 1. Your opinion. I have a nokia phone and I have had no problems. 2. Sideways? Its a phone. You should use a headset. 3. You note here is just incorrect. I don't know where you got that information, but please don't repeat it. 4. Yup, 3D graphics is definitely a flaw. You trying to say that reveals just how much haterade you had for lunch today. 5. Draw one poly? I have seen THPS1 running on it. It looked exactly the same, if not better, than it did on PlayStation. Thats right the original. Not the GBA cheap version of 3D. 6. You intend to play games on you N-Gage (or gameboy?) for more than 6 hours in a day? No you don't. 7. Um, its not that hard to change games. You clearly have never tried it. 8. Like you can EVER get a call on your Gameboy...
I don't work for Nokia, I just hate pre-haters. I have used the system. Performance wise it is awesome. All day long we beg for innovation, then someone tries something new (creating an all-in-one mobile device), and everyone pre-hates. No wonder most companies choose to do the same thing over again...
I think this story is relevent, and I didn't see it posted as a news item. Maybe someone with clout should?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/32355.html
Hey Painkiller, Mike's back to challenge your constant defense of the Big N.
You explained alot of things. All of these are true. You completely ignored the main point of the original post. Why does all of that excuse Nintendo from trying to do something value-added? They won't make extra money on it, but they won't lose money either. Look at the XBOX model. The DVD functionality isn't technically built in, so they don't have to pay a fee to the DVD gods, UNLESS the end user wants the functionality then the end user buys the remote and covers the cost themselves. Give the user the option.
Its just doing something nice for the customer. The quote in the parent you replied to is about contempt for the consumer. Something Nintendo shows an increasing amount of.
yet another straw man argument, ignoring the underlying point, which I will reiterate for the dense among us: Your resorting to personal attacks just goes to show how fringe and paranoid your position is. Maybe you missed the part wherein I personally pointed out how silly my example is. I will not join in this type of behavior because I don't have to.
become acceptable to fire someone for voicing an opinion one doesn't agree with... As far as I can tell, this was always been allowed as part of freedom of association. One freedom does not cancel the other within private organizations. If I don't like you, I will fire you. If an individual wants to say whatever they want they can, but there is a risk that what they say may be perceived as my position and the position of the entity that I own if that person is my employee. I have to be able to terminate them for this. You think a retail clerk can say whatever they want to a customer? What if said clerk makes racist comments to a customer? Clearly this is protected speech, but it is also clearly bad for my business. I have the right, based on the employees speech alone, to fire them. Since you seem to be of the belief that this is not fair, I have to assume you live in California.
Freedom of speech does not exist if you can lose your job, your freedom, or your life for expressing it. I will boil it down to the basic concept for you. The Constitution only defines the relationship between the government and the people. It does not attempt to define the relationship amongst the people. If the government is attempting to abridge your rights via any of your listed methods, this is illegal and unconstitutional. I can, today and tomorrow, say anything I want without fear of governmental reprisal. (I am curious to hear what specific incident makes you fear governmental reprisal.)
The fact is that the government is but one entity capable of denying a person their income, their freedom, or their life for expressing an unpopular opinion...economic threat through boycott (or dismissal from one's workplace) has replaced burning crosses and torches as the preferred method by which this is achieved Hmm, great FUD. Doesn't change a thing. I have the right to spend my money wherever I want. Why does that scare you so much? I have the right to hire and fire whoever I want. Why does that scare you so much?
If I may: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. and: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one
If anyone thinks a Vietnam themed game is inherently in bad taste, they MUST believe the same thing about WWII games and even GTA or they are hypocrites.
Real people dying is a Very Bad Thing. A simulation of a situation of a real person dying is an exercise for the individual. If they die in Vietnam, if they die in France, if they die on Main Street USA they are all the same. If you shoot one simulated person, you have shot them all. To say otherwise is some sort of bizarre virtual racism. Its ok to shoot Germans but not Vietnamese? Keep your labels, they are just 3D models of people.
Pick one: A) I am ok with games portraying violence against realistic looking people. B) I am not ok with games portraying violence against realistic looking people.
A Vietnam themed game will likely follow one soldier and that soldier will do heroic things, just like a WWII game.
Sanctions are speech. They are an action that promotes and expresses a viewpoint.
At the most fundamental and oversimplified level (ie my second example), I as a privately owned business, have the right to do business with whoever I choose. If your beliefs differ enough from my own that it makes me not want to associate with you, and thus not do business with you, then I am in no way obligated to do so. This is as much free speech as what you said to make me feel this way. It is also sanctions, though on a very small scale. Therefore, it can be extrapolated out to the level of me telling everyone I know what you said, and all of us deciding not to do business with you. Now we have large-scale sanctions, but still not government sanctions. This is more than acceptable, this is free speech. Could this threaten someone's livelihood? Of course. Is it against free speech? No, it is the economical application of free speech.
our most fundamental democratic institutions are being eroded faster than ever before in our history My only question to this is to what institution are we are speaking now? If you made the speech at a podium it would surely be video or tape recorded. If you post it on the internet, it is logged. This is to be expected. How is this an attack on "the right to speak, or write, and be heard, without having to fear for my livelihood, my job, my safety, or even my life"?
To take your arguement into the realm of the silly (though to a place that it will surely have to apply against your will), how can you then hold anything W says against him? If you don't like what he says, and therefore vote against him, isn't that "the freedom to gratuitiously sanction and harm another for speaking an opinion you don't like." I mean, its just what he said. And you harmed him by voting against him. And you probably convinced lots of people to vote against him.
Um protesting someone's speech is also free speech. Why do you want to shut down the reaction? This would be the goal of someone who doesn't want their arguement to be challenged.
Example: Politician: I voted for X. You: The politician voted for X, but X kills babies. Response: We need X its saves lives, its only killed one baby and that baby was dropped on its head anyway.
See, all speeches and counter-speeches are important, including action as speech.
Another example: Me: Thanks for the transaction, I like how you do business. Another: Yeah, and its because I only do business with white people. Me: You what? I'm sorry, I can't support that, this will be our last transaction.
Yes, speech does and should have the potential for very real tangible consequences. Just never from the government. Thats what Free Speech is truly all about.
There is nothing to fear from reaction speech. If you listen to the counter-point, you may actually find out you were wrong in the first place. Then where would we be without the counter-point? Free speech does not stop with the initial speaker.
Now since you got off-topic a bit: The point I think you were trying to make about consequences...My arguement to that is, if you put it on the internet, expect it to be read and recorded. If you don't you are just dangerously naive. And if you didn't want it to be read, why did you put it there anyway?
Who told you the combat in KoToR was "videogame style"? (whatever that means...real time?) KoToR was a d20 game. That means dungeons and dragons. I don't see how you could have been disappointed by that unless you were misled into thinking it was something else. In that case you should really blame the person who lied to you.
Personally, I think KoToR is the best console RPG in the post-cartridge era. I hate cutscenes; KoToR lets me play the game and have choices that effect the outcome. Heh, I got banned from a whole planet. I don't remember anything that irreversable ever happening in FF. I'm going to play it again, and based on my impressions on another run-through I might upgrade it to my favorite console RPG ever.
In general, there has been absolutely nothing creative or innovative in Nintendo's lineup in a long time. I am not saying they are bad games, but I would like you to point out the creativity. I will now set about to point out the utter lack thereof, in brief:
1) Zelda: WW = Zelda: OoT - Horse - difficulty + boat. That is all. The gameplay is the same, if not simplified. Sure its on a boat, but those sequences only serve to make the game arbitrarily longer. 2) Mario Sunshine. Mario 64 + water. Still nothing new here. 3) Mario Golf: TT. Did they even try? It is the EXACT same game as Mario Golf. 4) Eternal Darkness. The way people talk about this game one would think N invented survival horror. So its Resident Evil with more characters. Break it up however you want its still the same game. 5) Metroid Prime. FPS - speed. They took the thrill and speed out of an FPS. Not innovation. 6) Pikmin. Its weird alright. If you call this innovative, I guess you can have it, cause its not a fun game. 7) Animal Crossing. Wow, they re-released an N64 game. Thats about as far removed as creativity as it gets.
I can go on and on, but since your post didn't actually mention any innovation, I'll leave it at that for now.
Now to do the unthinkable and defend M$. Outside of Sega, the only true innovation has been the hard drive. Hate on Blinx all you want, but that is that last game I can think of that tried something truly different. Of course the game didn't end up being very good. So that begs the question, why innovate when it ain't broke?
Wow, I'm sorry your experience has left you hating people and/or life. I enjoy going to Las Vegas and make several trips a year. I don't go expecting to win. I understand the odds of the many games and how to manipulate them to minimize the house edge. I also understand that there will always be a house edge. (I know, blackjack blah blah) I am not a sucker. Most times I leave ahead, other times I don't. The keyes are: Did I have fun? and How much did that fun cost me?
Thats what bringing in these game designers into the slot world is all about. Making the games more fun. This is a Good Thing. Sure you are going to lose, so try to have fun doing it.
Of course if your idea of fun is kicking people and acting all bitter on message boards this might not all be getting through to you anyway. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
If you want to play a tactical objective based shooter, play that. Doom = Deathmatch. Its really that simple. All games are different and come from different places. Different = good. Choices = good.
I am not defending anything. I am saying they are all bad. I am calling anyone who watched Titanic, and then blasts this proposed game, a hypocrite. No more, no less.
I made no such comparisons as you enumerate.
People dying = bad. People profiting from other people dying = really bad.
Don't justify your arbitrary distinction.
I assure you I don't need karma points Mr. Flake. I fail to see how time is relevent to a tragedy. If people died in the incident, why should anyone be able to profit from that?
So it comes back to you defending your actions of participating in one insensitive act while condemning another. Hyposcrisy!
Sure, but I'll go slow for you, you AC fanboy you.
Having all of the functions on one chip, such as the PS2 does, mean everything has to share the same processor. That means it can only be really doing one thing at a time at the most fundamental level. So to do real time 5.1 sound, that means EVERYTHING else in the game that uses the processor would have less potential turns at clock cycles. Same with AA, same with everything. Nothing is prevented, but everything suffers with every stretch of the sound or graphics. Higher quality sound = lower quality AI. Better quality 3D = lower quality sound. And on and on you trade off. Less polys, less, well, everything.
With the XBOX, since it has seperate chips for sound, 3d and general processing, it can do 3 potential things at once. I think that summed it up pretty simply for the silly AC's among us. If you dont believe me, look at the average PS2 game box you will see Dolby Pro Logic II while the average XBOX game box will show Dolby Digital 5.1. This is the reason why.
Long story short, if it costs me the consumer the same amount of money, I'd prefer more chips please.
So, how many people who are upset about this game ever saw Titanic, Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List? All those movies were seeking to profit from events in which many real people died. I bet you all saw all of them.
I personally have only seen the last one and only because it was shown in school and I would be tested on it.
Please keep your inconsistent poser activism speechs to yourself. You can surely get karma points other ways, eh boys?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry boss. Here in California we are required to take something called "lunch" and are also entitled to little things called "breaks". We found that it actually was more productive to have leisure activities available on our campus. The employees were less likely to go elsewhere during this time, and were thus more likely to be back from break on time. Its really win/win. Happier people who are at work more.
Actually, just the opposite. We played Quake3 together a bunch where I work. (Only past tense because we have moved on to other games). Those were some of the best times because of the extremely simple gameplay, very large possible player limit and short amount of time required to play.
Also consider Enemy Territory. I really promotes teamwork, and, best of all, its free. Outside of an FPS, when are you going to be able to feed your boss a rocket then have a good laugh about it later? Just remember, don't get too heated because you are still at work and can't be sexually harrassing people when you make them your bitch.
Wow, all AC replies. Kinda vindicates my points, slashdot works!
Ah, its in a book. By the "science fiction grand master" (from the website). We should DEFINITELY always live out our lives by the words of fictional characters.
"You're doing work for people that you are equally qualified with (or more qualified), and it tends to breed disgruntled employees"
PRECISELY the point. You forgot to add "you perceive" between that and you. A PhD tends to come with a big head. A big head does not make for a good team player. So you gotta get that top position or nothing. THAT is where "over qualified" comes from.
Whats the smell? Ah Fear. Yup, you are going to get asked real world questions when you get finished with that PhD. You are going to get messed with. If you expect scholary debate to get things done on the job, thats PRECISELY what they want to find out.
To play to a PhD's strength, a PhD should probably just stay in school forever.
You continue to apologize for them...
You say: Nintendo's given a lot of different reasons for that, and the most recent one seems to be that the Cube is meant as a game console, and that is all. Further reasons would be mostly technical (piracy is harder, the disc is written in a different manner (outside-in rather than inside-out) which should reduce loading times somewhat), but overall it just comes down to this simple answer: ask them. If piracy is the main concern, then of course they lose money by going to DVD, because so far no DVD system has been safe from piracy, and there's no proof that there ever will be one that is. At the same time, they (through Panasonic) have a system capable of playing DVDs in Japan, so why not here? It obviously costs a lot more than the base console because the console uses a non-standard disc format, but it still exists.
But they say: "If someone buys a DVD and watches it on the Nintendo GameCube, we wouldn't receive any revenue from that. We'd rather have them play our games."
I tend to believe the word from the horse's mouth. You still have not addressed their comment at all. Stop looking around, and just look at what they said. They have no intention of adding value for the positive sake of adding value. They, more than any other first party, don't care about you. They aren't even afraid to admit it anymore.
Just some whats wrong with your whats wrong:
1. Your opinion. I have a nokia phone and I have had no problems.
2. Sideways? Its a phone. You should use a headset.
3. You note here is just incorrect. I don't know where you got that information, but please don't repeat it.
4. Yup, 3D graphics is definitely a flaw. You trying to say that reveals just how much haterade you had for lunch today.
5. Draw one poly? I have seen THPS1 running on it. It looked exactly the same, if not better, than it did on PlayStation. Thats right the original. Not the GBA cheap version of 3D.
6. You intend to play games on you N-Gage (or gameboy?) for more than 6 hours in a day? No you don't.
7. Um, its not that hard to change games. You clearly have never tried it.
8. Like you can EVER get a call on your Gameboy...
I don't work for Nokia, I just hate pre-haters. I have used the system. Performance wise it is awesome. All day long we beg for innovation, then someone tries something new (creating an all-in-one mobile device), and everyone pre-hates. No wonder most companies choose to do the same thing over again...
I think this story is relevent, and I didn't see it posted as a news item. Maybe someone with clout should? http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/32355.html
Hey Painkiller, Mike's back to challenge your constant defense of the Big N.
You explained alot of things. All of these are true. You completely ignored the main point of the original post. Why does all of that excuse Nintendo from trying to do something value-added? They won't make extra money on it, but they won't lose money either. Look at the XBOX model. The DVD functionality isn't technically built in, so they don't have to pay a fee to the DVD gods, UNLESS the end user wants the functionality then the end user buys the remote and covers the cost themselves. Give the user the option.
Its just doing something nice for the customer. The quote in the parent you replied to is about contempt for the consumer. Something Nintendo shows an increasing amount of.
yet another straw man argument, ignoring the underlying point, which I will reiterate for the dense among us:
Your resorting to personal attacks just goes to show how fringe and paranoid your position is. Maybe you missed the part wherein I personally pointed out how silly my example is. I will not join in this type of behavior because I don't have to.
become acceptable to fire someone for voicing an opinion one doesn't agree with...
As far as I can tell, this was always been allowed as part of freedom of association. One freedom does not cancel the other within private organizations. If I don't like you, I will fire you. If an individual wants to say whatever they want they can, but there is a risk that what they say may be perceived as my position and the position of the entity that I own if that person is my employee. I have to be able to terminate them for this. You think a retail clerk can say whatever they want to a customer? What if said clerk makes racist comments to a customer? Clearly this is protected speech, but it is also clearly bad for my business. I have the right, based on the employees speech alone, to fire them. Since you seem to be of the belief that this is not fair, I have to assume you live in California.
Freedom of speech does not exist if you can lose your job, your freedom, or your life for expressing it.
I will boil it down to the basic concept for you. The Constitution only defines the relationship between the government and the people. It does not attempt to define the relationship amongst the people. If the government is attempting to abridge your rights via any of your listed methods, this is illegal and unconstitutional. I can, today and tomorrow, say anything I want without fear of governmental reprisal. (I am curious to hear what specific incident makes you fear governmental reprisal.)
The fact is that the government is but one entity capable of denying a person their income, their freedom, or their life for expressing an unpopular opinion...economic threat through boycott (or dismissal from one's workplace) has replaced burning crosses and torches as the preferred method by which this is achieved
Hmm, great FUD. Doesn't change a thing. I have the right to spend my money wherever I want. Why does that scare you so much? I have the right to hire and fire whoever I want. Why does that scare you so much?
If I may:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
and:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one
If anyone thinks a Vietnam themed game is inherently in bad taste, they MUST believe the same thing about WWII games and even GTA or they are hypocrites.
Real people dying is a Very Bad Thing. A simulation of a situation of a real person dying is an exercise for the individual. If they die in Vietnam, if they die in France, if they die on Main Street USA they are all the same. If you shoot one simulated person, you have shot them all. To say otherwise is some sort of bizarre virtual racism. Its ok to shoot Germans but not Vietnamese? Keep your labels, they are just 3D models of people.
Pick one:
A) I am ok with games portraying violence against realistic looking people.
B) I am not ok with games portraying violence against realistic looking people.
A Vietnam themed game will likely follow one soldier and that soldier will do heroic things, just like a WWII game.
Sanctions are speech. They are an action that promotes and expresses a viewpoint.
At the most fundamental and oversimplified level (ie my second example), I as a privately owned business, have the right to do business with whoever I choose. If your beliefs differ enough from my own that it makes me not want to associate with you, and thus not do business with you, then I am in no way obligated to do so. This is as much free speech as what you said to make me feel this way. It is also sanctions, though on a very small scale. Therefore, it can be extrapolated out to the level of me telling everyone I know what you said, and all of us deciding not to do business with you. Now we have large-scale sanctions, but still not government sanctions. This is more than acceptable, this is free speech. Could this threaten someone's livelihood? Of course. Is it against free speech? No, it is the economical application of free speech.
our most fundamental democratic institutions are being eroded faster than ever before in our history
My only question to this is to what institution are we are speaking now? If you made the speech at a podium it would surely be video or tape recorded. If you post it on the internet, it is logged. This is to be expected. How is this an attack on "the right to speak, or write, and be heard, without having to fear for my livelihood, my job, my safety, or even my life"?
To take your arguement into the realm of the silly (though to a place that it will surely have to apply against your will), how can you then hold anything W says against him? If you don't like what he says, and therefore vote against him, isn't that "the freedom to gratuitiously sanction and harm another for speaking an opinion you don't like." I mean, its just what he said. And you harmed him by voting against him. And you probably convinced lots of people to vote against him.
*cough*
Um protesting someone's speech is also free speech. Why do you want to shut down the reaction? This would be the goal of someone who doesn't want their arguement to be challenged.
Example:
Politician: I voted for X.
You: The politician voted for X, but X kills babies.
Response: We need X its saves lives, its only killed one baby and that baby was dropped on its head anyway.
See, all speeches and counter-speeches are important, including action as speech.
Another example:
Me: Thanks for the transaction, I like how you do business.
Another: Yeah, and its because I only do business with white people.
Me: You what? I'm sorry, I can't support that, this will be our last transaction.
Yes, speech does and should have the potential for very real tangible consequences. Just never from the government. Thats what Free Speech is truly all about.
There is nothing to fear from reaction speech. If you listen to the counter-point, you may actually find out you were wrong in the first place. Then where would we be without the counter-point? Free speech does not stop with the initial speaker.
Now since you got off-topic a bit: The point I think you were trying to make about consequences...My arguement to that is, if you put it on the internet, expect it to be read and recorded. If you don't you are just dangerously naive. And if you didn't want it to be read, why did you put it there anyway?
Who told you the combat in KoToR was "videogame style"? (whatever that means...real time?) KoToR was a d20 game. That means dungeons and dragons. I don't see how you could have been disappointed by that unless you were misled into thinking it was something else. In that case you should really blame the person who lied to you.
Personally, I think KoToR is the best console RPG in the post-cartridge era. I hate cutscenes; KoToR lets me play the game and have choices that effect the outcome. Heh, I got banned from a whole planet. I don't remember anything that irreversable ever happening in FF. I'm going to play it again, and based on my impressions on another run-through I might upgrade it to my favorite console RPG ever.
Haterade, its not just for breakfast anymore eh?
In general, there has been absolutely nothing creative or innovative in Nintendo's lineup in a long time. I am not saying they are bad games, but I would like you to point out the creativity. I will now set about to point out the utter lack thereof, in brief:
1) Zelda: WW = Zelda: OoT - Horse - difficulty + boat. That is all. The gameplay is the same, if not simplified. Sure its on a boat, but those sequences only serve to make the game arbitrarily longer.
2) Mario Sunshine. Mario 64 + water. Still nothing new here.
3) Mario Golf: TT. Did they even try? It is the EXACT same game as Mario Golf.
4) Eternal Darkness. The way people talk about this game one would think N invented survival horror. So its Resident Evil with more characters. Break it up however you want its still the same game.
5) Metroid Prime. FPS - speed. They took the thrill and speed out of an FPS. Not innovation.
6) Pikmin. Its weird alright. If you call this innovative, I guess you can have it, cause its not a fun game.
7) Animal Crossing. Wow, they re-released an N64 game. Thats about as far removed as creativity as it gets.
I can go on and on, but since your post didn't actually mention any innovation, I'll leave it at that for now.
Now to do the unthinkable and defend M$. Outside of Sega, the only true innovation has been the hard drive. Hate on Blinx all you want, but that is that last game I can think of that tried something truly different. Of course the game didn't end up being very good. So that begs the question, why innovate when it ain't broke?
Wow, I'm sorry your experience has left you hating people and/or life. I enjoy going to Las Vegas and make several trips a year. I don't go expecting to win. I understand the odds of the many games and how to manipulate them to minimize the house edge. I also understand that there will always be a house edge. (I know, blackjack blah blah) I am not a sucker. Most times I leave ahead, other times I don't. The keyes are: Did I have fun? and How much did that fun cost me?
Thats what bringing in these game designers into the slot world is all about. Making the games more fun. This is a Good Thing. Sure you are going to lose, so try to have fun doing it.
Of course if your idea of fun is kicking people and acting all bitter on message boards this might not all be getting through to you anyway. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
If you want to play a tactical objective based shooter, play that. Doom = Deathmatch. Its really that simple. All games are different and come from different places. Different = good. Choices = good.
Your expectation is arbitrary. If the maps and gameplay are designed for 4 players, why would someone want 8?
I am not defending anything. I am saying they are all bad. I am calling anyone who watched Titanic, and then blasts this proposed game, a hypocrite. No more, no less.
I made no such comparisons as you enumerate. People dying = bad. People profiting from other people dying = really bad. Don't justify your arbitrary distinction.
I assure you I don't need karma points Mr. Flake. I fail to see how time is relevent to a tragedy. If people died in the incident, why should anyone be able to profit from that?
So it comes back to you defending your actions of participating in one insensitive act while condemning another. Hyposcrisy!
Sure, but I'll go slow for you, you AC fanboy you.
Having all of the functions on one chip, such as the PS2 does, mean everything has to share the same processor. That means it can only be really doing one thing at a time at the most fundamental level. So to do real time 5.1 sound, that means EVERYTHING else in the game that uses the processor would have less potential turns at clock cycles. Same with AA, same with everything. Nothing is prevented, but everything suffers with every stretch of the sound or graphics. Higher quality sound = lower quality AI. Better quality 3D = lower quality sound. And on and on you trade off. Less polys, less, well, everything.
With the XBOX, since it has seperate chips for sound, 3d and general processing, it can do 3 potential things at once. I think that summed it up pretty simply for the silly AC's among us. If you dont believe me, look at the average PS2 game box you will see Dolby Pro Logic II while the average XBOX game box will show Dolby Digital 5.1. This is the reason why.
Long story short, if it costs me the consumer the same amount of money, I'd prefer more chips please.
So, how many people who are upset about this game ever saw Titanic, Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List? All those movies were seeking to profit from events in which many real people died. I bet you all saw all of them.
I personally have only seen the last one and only because it was shown in school and I would be tested on it.
Please keep your inconsistent poser activism speechs to yourself. You can surely get karma points other ways, eh boys?
And why supporting real time 5.1 in games in almost impossible as well as anti-aliasing, and why the graphics for the PS2 are so far inferior...
The fewer the chips the better? Only for the manufactorer. If the price is the same to the consumer, I'll take more please.