I'm with you. Sonic Adventure 1 & 2 I really loved, and I didn't play the original sonics in the 80s so I don't have the nostalgia that everyone else has. But the 3d sonics after adventure 2 are horrible full of fail. I tried heroes, and it was painfully lame. Then sonic was a werewolf. then sonic got a sword. wtf?
I don't have a lot of hope for this. But the sonic advances and rushes for handhelds were pretty cool. so maybe.
All the women I've talked to have little interest in games and look at me as if I'm strange (about the same look when I discuss Star Trek). Just from observation, it appears the videogaming is dominated by 95% men with just a few gals scattered here-and-there... like it's always been.
Surveys of your friends does not make accurate data. I'm a girl gamer and all of my female friends play games, but I don't go around saying 100% of women in general play games. Though I doubt it could just be that I happen to only be friends w/ the "5%" - someone has to be buying all those Hannah Montana and nintendogs ripoffs on DS, and I doubt it's men/boys.
There's been a number of studies over years showing that women gamers are a sizable group and growing. Here's one example: Women Gamers Outnumber Men in 25-34 Age Group. Really, you're kinda out of the loop here, thinking that maybe 5% of gamers are women.
Honestly I think I'd be happier playing Twilight Princess with an ordinary gamepad, ala 'Cube, than with the Wiimote.
I played the Cube version, and I loved it. I don't know if I'd like it with the Wiimote, which is why I bought the cube version, even though I played it on the Wii. I think developers shouldn't be shy about using the cube controller for Wii games, like Smash Bros Brawl does.
Yes, I'm finding FFXII's Boss battles to be much more challenging and exciting than CT's (and CTs' were better than FFVI's). You have to play smarter in FFXII, you can't just power your way past bosses with minimal strategy.
I could not disagree more. In FFXII, you set up your gambits with basic strategies, like heal your friends, and then you walk towards monsters and your characters automatically kill them, with no more input from you. You do that enough times, and then you can walk up to a boss and watch your characters kill it. I didn't get to the end of the game, the last place I remember going through was the Feywood, but the battle system seemed basically non-existent to me. And the storyline started out really well, and then started to just consist of 10 minute cut-scenes that said you had to walk to the other side of the map, and here's some bullshit about why you can't take a boat/airship. I got bored and gave up.
The only regular RPGs I've played that required real strategy and not just leveling up have been the Valkyrie Profile series. In the first VP, I met a boss that was crazy hard, went away and leveled up a bunch, and still got killed just as easily. Went online, found out the recommended level level him was 10 levels below me, wtf? But my problem was that I had the skills on my characters set up all wrong, and my strategy sucked as. Then I play VP2, and almost got my ass handed to me in the first dungeon because I didn't take the time to learn the battle system or think about what I was doing. Both of them have an excellent story, btw.
The PS3 isn't a failure until people just stop talking about it all together this is evidenced by all the other failed gamesystems.
People talked about the Dreamcast plenty both before and after Sega ran out of money and got out of the hardware business. Not that the PS3 is the Dreamcast (it's lasted much longer, for one) but the fact that people still talk about it doesn't mean that it won't fail or that Sony isn't in a very hard position with it.
The PS3 can stick around for a long, long time and as production methods get cheaper the 360 advantage won't exist anymore. On top of that people are going to get a little miffed when MS comes out with the next Xbox while PS3 users are still sitting pretty with backwards compatability and still superior hardware and graphics.
Most PS3s don't have backwards compatibility, and if you think that the PS3 will have superior hardware and graphics to the next Xbox you're insane.
No, they're right about that. In my teenage years, I had a lot of romantic ideals. I didn't really care about having sex until pressure from my peers and the media convinced me that it was the best thing ever and my life was worthless if I didn't have it.*
The real flaw in the right wing's argument is that the promotion is going to come from society, regardless of anything they might try to do at school or in the family.
Some people become interested in sex earlier or later than others. But, almost everyone will have sex at some point in their lives, even the conservatives agree with that. And high school classes aren't just about what you need to know while you're a teen. I've never understood why people think teens shouldn't have sex ed because they think teens shouldn't have sex. They're going to have sex sooner or later, and they need to know the facts.
One character will be excessively whiny and obnoxious (like Tidus whining about getting sucked into a kickass adventure with people like Auron and Wakka, AND getting a girlfriend out of it;
Tidus wasn't whiney! By the end of the game he figures out that finishing their mission is going to cause him to *cease to exist*, yet he tells no one! He just accepts it!
I only have an antenna, but I rarely watch TV and I'm perfectly fine with just watching TV on the internet. I think that the rebates more than a little silly (why can't I get a rebate to buy DVDs, or put towards my DSL bill? Maybe because the government doesn't normally buy people everything?). I think that the argument is that people might need TV for updates and information in an emergency, but the government didn't by them the TV in the first place (and doesn't care about people who don't have TVs), we still have radio, and if anyone really cared about TV available for emergencies then we'd keep one analog station open just for that purpose, but we're not. The convertor boxes are just going to be used for entertainment, and it's annoying that the government feels the need to buy people that.
Get a P.O. box. They're not expensive, and a are a lot more secure
If your post office sends mail to the wrong side of town, I don't see how they'd be very capable of putting it in the right box.
I get all sorts of mail that isn't for me. I get mail for mail for my neighbors, mail for the people who lived here 15 years ago, mail for people who have the same street address but a completely different street name, and mail that I have no idea how it got to my house. The part that pisses me off the most though? When *I* moved in, they needed a change of address form before they would deliver any of *my* mail. I'd never trust my post office with a P.O. box.
I'll tell you what I want to die - Web sites that spread an article out one paragraph at a time over 15 pages where the spam-to-content ratio is 15 to 1.
I'm sorry, but I didn't read the article, since I didn't get past page one of fifteen.
I got to page 2. There they have a link that is supposedly a microsoft article saying people loathe rover (the xp search dog). follow the link and... no, it doesn't say anything like that. Reading 15 pages is bad enough, but 15 pages of bullshit is not what I'm doing.
They did the same for me, too. I moved last December, and started ordering Christmas presents at my new address before I filled out a change of address with the post office. So, the post office sent them all back (*grr*). So I called Amazon, and they Fedexed them all overnight. I have *never* had better customer service.
I don't find this suprising in perspective of what people in the service sector usually have for themselves.
After all, what kind of car does your mechanic drive? Do you know when your mechanic last did an oil change on their own car?
I married my mechanic. I didn't realize that would mean I'd have one more car to take to get oil changes, but he never, ever, gets around to working on our own cars.
Well 15 minutes of power on and power off is a bit exaggerated (unless you really misconfigure linux). Normally for most business PC it takes about 1 minute to power on and power off doesn't need to be counted as you can perform this action without you actually there you hit shutdown and it does its thing.
I work on the help desk of a company with over 30,000 employees. It takes at least 5 minutes for our computers to boot up, and >10 minutes is not uncommon.
However the human factor is not factored in even for your 10 minute days of inactivity. At the beginning of the day most people are not at 100%. They will power on the computer, take off their jackets, get some coffee, put their lunches in the kitchen, greet some people, clean their desk up a bit. Also any loss productive during 10 minutes can usually be made up.
At some jobs, you can do that. At others (like mine) you're expected to be ready and working at your start time (there's a small grace period but not 10 minutes) and you can't do that if you're waiting on your computer to boot up, so that 10 minutes would have to be on your own time, coming in 10 minutes before you clock in. That doesn't sound like fun to me.
Cause once you're certain you can go back to normal knowing who is being nice because of the tits and who is being friendly based on the rest of you.
Because once you establish to the nice guys that you're boring as hell it'll be real easy to get them to talk to you once you go back to being normal. Sure.
For starters, most people's first reaction to getting sick isn't to google their symptoms.
That's the first thing I do when I get sick. What are you going to do at the drug store if you don't know if you have a cold, the flu, allergies, or something else? Waste your money on drugs that don't do anything because you bought the wrong stuff? No, google is your friend.
But you are still playing, you're admitting it yourself.
I don't know why you put so much emphasis on that word. While you watch movies, read books, and play games because they're different forms of media one is not better or worse than the others. For some games you could say that you read them, if that would give you a better impression of them, considering the interaction in some is only slightly more than an ebook. Anyways, what you said before was "Good video games are interesting if they are fun to play, good books and movies don't need to be fun to be interesting," and I disagree, because I've played plenty of games that were not fun to play but I continued because they were interesting and had a good storyline. Reading, in and of itself, is not particularly fun, but the content can make it interesting and worthwhile. That's how I feel about playing some video games.
Besides, this is getting off-topic, re-read what the original poster asked for: "profound concepts", this is beyond adventure game plots. I doubt Hotel Dusk and Trace Memory, even turned into novels, would give him the intellectual kick he's after.
You want profound concepts in a video game? Try playing a game like BioShock, which is a fascinating dystopian story comparable to (and just as indepth as) Brave New World or 1984. There's a lot more to gaming than mindless FPSs and pointless puzzle games. Yes, sometimes it looks like everything on the shelf is "sing along with Hanna Montana", but there's plenty of games that have storylines and characterization comparable to, and sometimes better than, most books. They're not up there with the best books yet, but there's no reason they can't get there. The author of the article showed his cluelessness by asking for a game with more depth than Super Mario Bros, when there's been games with more depth than that since before it was made. But I guess if you close your mind at the word "play" and think that couldn't possibly have any depth because you're playing, well, then I guess you're the one missing out.
Good video games are interesting if they are fun to play
That's not true. I've played plenty of games where the gameplay was unremarkable at best, but the story and the charactors kept me into it. For example, Hotel Dusk and Trace Memory for the DS. The gameplay is basic, and without a storyline no one would play it for 5 seconds. But unraveling the mysteries is what makes them interesting.
x86/x64 is the mainstream platform for all present-day desktop OSes. Learn to deal with it already.
And Windows is the mainstream OS. So why don't all us Linux geeks just deal with that?
Open source is about doing what you want with software, and not being beholden to one developer or manufacturer. I say we definately need a quality open source flash player or alternative.
What proportion of people actually re-sell their games, though? I know I've certainly never bothered. The value of a game to me is the entertainment it provides, full stop, and once I've had that entertainment I don't expect to get any of the money back -- any more than I expect to be able to re-sell my tickets after I've watched a movie, or re-sell my holiday when I get back home.
It's more like reselling your DVD after you've watched a movie, not the tickets. I don't sell many of my games, but I've bought a lot of used games. Sure, there's some used games that are beat up and not worth it, but it's not that difficult to find games in good condition, no scratches, with the instruction book, etc. Since I don't find it especially exciting to pull off the scrink wrap, I choose the cheaper option.
Or if the copyright holder didn't want these games on the market because they have newer games that they want to sell, which will now not be bought because people are buying these older pirated games instead. Likely.
What? So someone wouldn't buy Mario Galaxy because they can buy pirated Super Mario Bros.? What?
The only reason anyone would buy old pirated games as opposed to buying old used games or pirating themselves is when they can buy pirated games in a large group of 100 or so. Half of the games won't be played. Most of the rest will be played for 5 seconds, laughed at, and then ignored. The worst that happens is maybe someone won't pay $5 for Kid Icarus because of this. Or maybe they get sick of playing Kid Icarus on a crappy pirated system and having to scroll through 30 crappy games to find it, and then spend $5 to play it on their Wii. More than likely, the most often played game on that pirated system is that japanese version of bubble bobble with the naked women in the background. That's not going on the Wii.
as for my last example: lets talk ethics, shall we? if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, is her husband duty bound by marriage to remain celibate himself? can he rightfully seek sex outside the marriage if his wife refuses sex?
If his marriage vows included fidelity, then no. The ethical things to do in that situation is to stay celibate, divorce, or talk to her and come to some kind of agreement. If she's the type of person that will never, ever accept an open relationship, is not willing/able to work on her reasons for not having sex, and they have a very happy & stable marriage outside of sex then infidelity is understandable, but not ethical. And if she finds out that he's cheating and divorces him, then there marriage was not meant to be and he just needs to accept that, instead of blaming other people for an incompatability on their part.
Don't worry kid, by the time you're 25 you'll be partied out and vote for higher cigarette taxes and tougher drunk driving laws, too.
I know, it's terrible. I'm 27, and yesterday I was listening to two younger girls from church talking about all their drinking exploits, and I wanted to yell at them for being stupid and being too young to drink, and all that. Then I remembered when I was 16 I got kicked out of Girl Scout camp for drinking as a counselor-in-training. I just kinda slunked away in a cloud of hipocrasy.
Seriously. Anyone who has dated a geek girl knows that misogyny is a drop in the bucket compared to the problem that girls geared toward science and math face from other girls who will be absolutely VICIOUS in putting them down.
Unless you're only talking about high school (where most kids are vicious, whether you're geeky or fat or wierd or anything else they don't like) other girls are NOT the biggest problem for geek girls. In college, I took mostly geeky classes, so I was either the only girl or the other girls were just as geeky as me, so I didn't see non-geeky girls who would put me down to often. Once I got out of school, it became even easier to avoid girls who would judge me for being geeky. But you know who I can't avoid? Geek guys. So, even if more girls are cruel than geek guys are sexist, the geek guys affect me much more than anti-geek girls ever could. Everytime I try to explain something technical to a guy and he decides I must not know what I'm talking about, it hurts me and can (and probably has) hurt my career. When a more experienced tech at my current job started to take me under his wing and mentor me, and then completely stopped talking to me after I stopped wearing makeup (yes, I'm serious), that sexism hurts me more than all the comments girls made behind my back in high school. Now I get to wonder if it's worth stooping to the pettiness and wearing makeup again so I can get back in the good graces of someone who could probably help me a lot here, or if it would be wrong to try to move up solely on the base of my appearance, and I get to wonder if all the other guys here are just as sexist but less blatant about it. That's far from the only example of sexism I've experienced, it's just the most recent. Hands down, sexist guys are much more of a problem for geeky girls than anti-geeky girls are.
If this is just a "The State of New York says this game should be rated M" while ESRB says it's rated T, I don't see the big deal. Even if, say, a NY rating is required to sell in the state of NY, I wouldn't support that, but I don't see how it's unconstitutional.
Who is going to be rating all the games, and why should my tax dollars go towards paying someone to do something the ESRB already does?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you. Sonic Adventure 1 & 2 I really loved, and I didn't play the original sonics in the 80s so I don't have the nostalgia that everyone else has. But the 3d sonics after adventure 2 are horrible full of fail. I tried heroes, and it was painfully lame. Then sonic was a werewolf. then sonic got a sword. wtf?
I don't have a lot of hope for this. But the sonic advances and rushes for handhelds were pretty cool. so maybe.
Hooray! Somebody finally found something in this universe that has absolutely zero risk! And it involves babies and surgery!
I think the poster meant it would involve zero risk to the mother. Because she wouldn't be pregnant. So she would have zero pregnancy risks.
All the women I've talked to have little interest in games and look at me as if I'm strange (about the same look when I discuss Star Trek). Just from observation, it appears the videogaming is dominated by 95% men with just a few gals scattered here-and-there... like it's always been.
Surveys of your friends does not make accurate data. I'm a girl gamer and all of my female friends play games, but I don't go around saying 100% of women in general play games. Though I doubt it could just be that I happen to only be friends w/ the "5%" - someone has to be buying all those Hannah Montana and nintendogs ripoffs on DS, and I doubt it's men/boys.
There's been a number of studies over years showing that women gamers are a sizable group and growing. Here's one example: Women Gamers Outnumber Men in 25-34 Age Group. Really, you're kinda out of the loop here, thinking that maybe 5% of gamers are women.
Honestly I think I'd be happier playing Twilight Princess with an ordinary gamepad, ala 'Cube, than with the Wiimote.
I played the Cube version, and I loved it. I don't know if I'd like it with the Wiimote, which is why I bought the cube version, even though I played it on the Wii. I think developers shouldn't be shy about using the cube controller for Wii games, like Smash Bros Brawl does.
Yes, I'm finding FFXII's Boss battles to be much more challenging and exciting than CT's (and CTs' were better than FFVI's). You have to play smarter in FFXII, you can't just power your way past bosses with minimal strategy.
I could not disagree more. In FFXII, you set up your gambits with basic strategies, like heal your friends, and then you walk towards monsters and your characters automatically kill them, with no more input from you. You do that enough times, and then you can walk up to a boss and watch your characters kill it. I didn't get to the end of the game, the last place I remember going through was the Feywood, but the battle system seemed basically non-existent to me. And the storyline started out really well, and then started to just consist of 10 minute cut-scenes that said you had to walk to the other side of the map, and here's some bullshit about why you can't take a boat/airship. I got bored and gave up.
The only regular RPGs I've played that required real strategy and not just leveling up have been the Valkyrie Profile series. In the first VP, I met a boss that was crazy hard, went away and leveled up a bunch, and still got killed just as easily. Went online, found out the recommended level level him was 10 levels below me, wtf? But my problem was that I had the skills on my characters set up all wrong, and my strategy sucked as. Then I play VP2, and almost got my ass handed to me in the first dungeon because I didn't take the time to learn the battle system or think about what I was doing. Both of them have an excellent story, btw.
The PS3 isn't a failure until people just stop talking about it all together this is evidenced by all the other failed gamesystems.
People talked about the Dreamcast plenty both before and after Sega ran out of money and got out of the hardware business. Not that the PS3 is the Dreamcast (it's lasted much longer, for one) but the fact that people still talk about it doesn't mean that it won't fail or that Sony isn't in a very hard position with it.
The PS3 can stick around for a long, long time and as production methods get cheaper the 360 advantage won't exist anymore. On top of that people are going to get a little miffed when MS comes out with the next Xbox while PS3 users are still sitting pretty with backwards compatability and still superior hardware and graphics.
Most PS3s don't have backwards compatibility, and if you think that the PS3 will have superior hardware and graphics to the next Xbox you're insane.
No, they're right about that. In my teenage years, I had a lot of romantic ideals. I didn't really care about having sex until pressure from my peers and the media convinced me that it was the best thing ever and my life was worthless if I didn't have it.* The real flaw in the right wing's argument is that the promotion is going to come from society, regardless of anything they might try to do at school or in the family.
Some people become interested in sex earlier or later than others. But, almost everyone will have sex at some point in their lives, even the conservatives agree with that. And high school classes aren't just about what you need to know while you're a teen. I've never understood why people think teens shouldn't have sex ed because they think teens shouldn't have sex. They're going to have sex sooner or later, and they need to know the facts.
One character will be excessively whiny and obnoxious (like Tidus whining about getting sucked into a kickass adventure with people like Auron and Wakka, AND getting a girlfriend out of it;
Tidus wasn't whiney! By the end of the game he figures out that finishing their mission is going to cause him to *cease to exist*, yet he tells no one! He just accepts it!
I only have an antenna, but I rarely watch TV and I'm perfectly fine with just watching TV on the internet. I think that the rebates more than a little silly (why can't I get a rebate to buy DVDs, or put towards my DSL bill? Maybe because the government doesn't normally buy people everything?). I think that the argument is that people might need TV for updates and information in an emergency, but the government didn't by them the TV in the first place (and doesn't care about people who don't have TVs), we still have radio, and if anyone really cared about TV available for emergencies then we'd keep one analog station open just for that purpose, but we're not. The convertor boxes are just going to be used for entertainment, and it's annoying that the government feels the need to buy people that.
Get a P.O. box. They're not expensive, and a are a lot more secure
If your post office sends mail to the wrong side of town, I don't see how they'd be very capable of putting it in the right box.
I get all sorts of mail that isn't for me. I get mail for mail for my neighbors, mail for the people who lived here 15 years ago, mail for people who have the same street address but a completely different street name, and mail that I have no idea how it got to my house. The part that pisses me off the most though? When *I* moved in, they needed a change of address form before they would deliver any of *my* mail. I'd never trust my post office with a P.O. box.
I wish everything was paperless.
I'll tell you what I want to die - Web sites that spread an article out one paragraph at a time over 15 pages where the spam-to-content ratio is 15 to 1.
I'm sorry, but I didn't read the article, since I didn't get past page one of fifteen.
I got to page 2. There they have a link that is supposedly a microsoft article saying people loathe rover (the xp search dog). follow the link and... no, it doesn't say anything like that. Reading 15 pages is bad enough, but 15 pages of bullshit is not what I'm doing.
They did the same for me, too. I moved last December, and started ordering Christmas presents at my new address before I filled out a change of address with the post office. So, the post office sent them all back (*grr*). So I called Amazon, and they Fedexed them all overnight. I have *never* had better customer service.
I don't find this suprising in perspective of what people in the service sector usually have for themselves. After all, what kind of car does your mechanic drive? Do you know when your mechanic last did an oil change on their own car?
I married my mechanic. I didn't realize that would mean I'd have one more car to take to get oil changes, but he never, ever, gets around to working on our own cars.
Well 15 minutes of power on and power off is a bit exaggerated (unless you really misconfigure linux). Normally for most business PC it takes about 1 minute to power on and power off doesn't need to be counted as you can perform this action without you actually there you hit shutdown and it does its thing.
I work on the help desk of a company with over 30,000 employees. It takes at least 5 minutes for our computers to boot up, and >10 minutes is not uncommon.
However the human factor is not factored in even for your 10 minute days of inactivity. At the beginning of the day most people are not at 100%. They will power on the computer, take off their jackets, get some coffee, put their lunches in the kitchen, greet some people, clean their desk up a bit. Also any loss productive during 10 minutes can usually be made up.
At some jobs, you can do that. At others (like mine) you're expected to be ready and working at your start time (there's a small grace period but not 10 minutes) and you can't do that if you're waiting on your computer to boot up, so that 10 minutes would have to be on your own time, coming in 10 minutes before you clock in. That doesn't sound like fun to me.
Cause once you're certain you can go back to normal knowing who is being nice because of the tits and who is being friendly based on the rest of you.
Because once you establish to the nice guys that you're boring as hell it'll be real easy to get them to talk to you once you go back to being normal. Sure.
For starters, most people's first reaction to getting sick isn't to google their symptoms.
That's the first thing I do when I get sick. What are you going to do at the drug store if you don't know if you have a cold, the flu, allergies, or something else? Waste your money on drugs that don't do anything because you bought the wrong stuff? No, google is your friend.
But you are still playing, you're admitting it yourself.
I don't know why you put so much emphasis on that word. While you watch movies, read books, and play games because they're different forms of media one is not better or worse than the others. For some games you could say that you read them, if that would give you a better impression of them, considering the interaction in some is only slightly more than an ebook. Anyways, what you said before was "Good video games are interesting if they are fun to play, good books and movies don't need to be fun to be interesting," and I disagree, because I've played plenty of games that were not fun to play but I continued because they were interesting and had a good storyline. Reading, in and of itself, is not particularly fun, but the content can make it interesting and worthwhile. That's how I feel about playing some video games.
Besides, this is getting off-topic, re-read what the original poster asked for: "profound concepts", this is beyond adventure game plots. I doubt Hotel Dusk and Trace Memory, even turned into novels, would give him the intellectual kick he's after.
You want profound concepts in a video game? Try playing a game like BioShock, which is a fascinating dystopian story comparable to (and just as indepth as) Brave New World or 1984. There's a lot more to gaming than mindless FPSs and pointless puzzle games. Yes, sometimes it looks like everything on the shelf is "sing along with Hanna Montana", but there's plenty of games that have storylines and characterization comparable to, and sometimes better than, most books. They're not up there with the best books yet, but there's no reason they can't get there. The author of the article showed his cluelessness by asking for a game with more depth than Super Mario Bros, when there's been games with more depth than that since before it was made. But I guess if you close your mind at the word "play" and think that couldn't possibly have any depth because you're playing, well, then I guess you're the one missing out.
Good video games are interesting if they are fun to play
That's not true. I've played plenty of games where the gameplay was unremarkable at best, but the story and the charactors kept me into it. For example, Hotel Dusk and Trace Memory for the DS. The gameplay is basic, and without a storyline no one would play it for 5 seconds. But unraveling the mysteries is what makes them interesting.
x86/x64 is the mainstream platform for all present-day desktop OSes. Learn to deal with it already.
And Windows is the mainstream OS. So why don't all us Linux geeks just deal with that?
Open source is about doing what you want with software, and not being beholden to one developer or manufacturer. I say we definately need a quality open source flash player or alternative.
What proportion of people actually re-sell their games, though? I know I've certainly never bothered. The value of a game to me is the entertainment it provides, full stop, and once I've had that entertainment I don't expect to get any of the money back -- any more than I expect to be able to re-sell my tickets after I've watched a movie, or re-sell my holiday when I get back home.
It's more like reselling your DVD after you've watched a movie, not the tickets. I don't sell many of my games, but I've bought a lot of used games. Sure, there's some used games that are beat up and not worth it, but it's not that difficult to find games in good condition, no scratches, with the instruction book, etc. Since I don't find it especially exciting to pull off the scrink wrap, I choose the cheaper option.
Or if the copyright holder didn't want these games on the market because they have newer games that they want to sell, which will now not be bought because people are buying these older pirated games instead. Likely.
What? So someone wouldn't buy Mario Galaxy because they can buy pirated Super Mario Bros.? What?
The only reason anyone would buy old pirated games as opposed to buying old used games or pirating themselves is when they can buy pirated games in a large group of 100 or so. Half of the games won't be played. Most of the rest will be played for 5 seconds, laughed at, and then ignored. The worst that happens is maybe someone won't pay $5 for Kid Icarus because of this. Or maybe they get sick of playing Kid Icarus on a crappy pirated system and having to scroll through 30 crappy games to find it, and then spend $5 to play it on their Wii. More than likely, the most often played game on that pirated system is that japanese version of bubble bobble with the naked women in the background. That's not going on the Wii.
as for my last example: lets talk ethics, shall we? if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, is her husband duty bound by marriage to remain celibate himself? can he rightfully seek sex outside the marriage if his wife refuses sex?
If his marriage vows included fidelity, then no. The ethical things to do in that situation is to stay celibate, divorce, or talk to her and come to some kind of agreement. If she's the type of person that will never, ever accept an open relationship, is not willing/able to work on her reasons for not having sex, and they have a very happy & stable marriage outside of sex then infidelity is understandable, but not ethical. And if she finds out that he's cheating and divorces him, then there marriage was not meant to be and he just needs to accept that, instead of blaming other people for an incompatability on their part.
Don't worry kid, by the time you're 25 you'll be partied out and vote for higher cigarette taxes and tougher drunk driving laws, too.
I know, it's terrible. I'm 27, and yesterday I was listening to two younger girls from church talking about all their drinking exploits, and I wanted to yell at them for being stupid and being too young to drink, and all that. Then I remembered when I was 16 I got kicked out of Girl Scout camp for drinking as a counselor-in-training. I just kinda slunked away in a cloud of hipocrasy.
Seriously. Anyone who has dated a geek girl knows that misogyny is a drop in the bucket compared to the problem that girls geared toward science and math face from other girls who will be absolutely VICIOUS in putting them down.
Unless you're only talking about high school (where most kids are vicious, whether you're geeky or fat or wierd or anything else they don't like) other girls are NOT the biggest problem for geek girls. In college, I took mostly geeky classes, so I was either the only girl or the other girls were just as geeky as me, so I didn't see non-geeky girls who would put me down to often. Once I got out of school, it became even easier to avoid girls who would judge me for being geeky. But you know who I can't avoid? Geek guys. So, even if more girls are cruel than geek guys are sexist, the geek guys affect me much more than anti-geek girls ever could. Everytime I try to explain something technical to a guy and he decides I must not know what I'm talking about, it hurts me and can (and probably has) hurt my career. When a more experienced tech at my current job started to take me under his wing and mentor me, and then completely stopped talking to me after I stopped wearing makeup (yes, I'm serious), that sexism hurts me more than all the comments girls made behind my back in high school. Now I get to wonder if it's worth stooping to the pettiness and wearing makeup again so I can get back in the good graces of someone who could probably help me a lot here, or if it would be wrong to try to move up solely on the base of my appearance, and I get to wonder if all the other guys here are just as sexist but less blatant about it. That's far from the only example of sexism I've experienced, it's just the most recent. Hands down, sexist guys are much more of a problem for geeky girls than anti-geeky girls are.
If this is just a "The State of New York says this game should be rated M" while ESRB says it's rated T, I don't see the big deal. Even if, say, a NY rating is required to sell in the state of NY, I wouldn't support that, but I don't see how it's unconstitutional.
Who is going to be rating all the games, and why should my tax dollars go towards paying someone to do something the ESRB already does?