The DS version saves whenever you do anything important, like get a star, open a new level, etc. It can't save within levels, but they're not that long so it doesn't take much time to get back where ever you got stuck.
As far as simple games, if Mario is complicated then I'd go with Wario Ware and Super Swing Golf and other simple looking Wii games. I can't think of a Playstation or Xbox game that is less complicated than Mario.
To a certain degree, the same is true of the Wii. We're halfway through January now, and the majority of games on the horizon are Virtual Console games.
While there are a lot of VC games, Nintendo isn't slouching on Wii games. Wario Ware is out this week (which is driving me nuts because I really can't afford it), Wii Play is out next month (ahh! where's my money!), and Mario Party's showing up the month after. Later this year we should be getting Sonic, Dragon Quest, Mario, Metroid, and Smash. And I still need to get Elebits and Super Swing Golf. I've never bought a console at launch before, and I couldn't be happier that I did this time (well, except when I look at my wallet, but my Wii's been very good at distracting me from that).
As for the PS3? Well, if you're an RPG fan and the PS2 was your bread and butter you have... Oblivion and hopefully FF13 to look forward to this year. If your a shooter/sports/fighting game fan, then you'd be more frugal buying a 360. I'll admit that I might be judging PS3 games too harshly because I just don't like their genres and they might really be good games for those who like that sort of thing, but I love my PS2 and in fact FF12 has seen more play this week than my Wii. Sony's gotta do something to get back all the RPG fans who adored the PS1+2, because right now the DS is looking like a more attractive platform for us, with DQ9 and being a fifth the price.
However, I don't buy the comment "I never knew the graphics were this amazing!" Non-gamers I know don't really care about graphics. Music has a universal appeal. Polygonal rendering does not.
Nongamers probably rememeber playing or watching someone play Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros. or something when they were younger, and that's what they think of when they think of games. Comparing that memory to, a full CGI from a modern Final Fantasy is quite a difference, so I'm not that surprised that they noticed it was pretty.
You called the support staff stupid and you're that surprised that they dropped the nice facade?
No, I did not, and I'm offended by your apparently poor reading ability combined with wannabe rude fingers.
You said "Or are you claiming that you're too stupid to understand what I wrote?". Maybe that's not directly calling them stupid, but it's far from polite. In fact, nothing you said was actually polite. Your first email:
For two weeks that's way over 100 per day. I don't want them. I'm not going to scan them. Why are you wasting your resources on them?
You should have an option to toss all blocked email immediately. I understand that you have to hold it temporarily to allow the blockee an option to register for Cashette, but there's no reason for me to see it while you're waiting. Or maybe you could include that as an another option?
I think you're sort of close to having a good system here, but it's still sort of recommendable.
You start out with no effort to be nice, and hardly even give an effort to make sense. Your first sentence is a continuation of the subject, which is a little confusing, and you go right into rant mode without fully explaining your problem or what you want. It would be easy to assume, like Cachette's Support did, that knowing how to delete messages would solve your problem since you never said you knew how to do that and your problem seems to be that you have >2,000 messages. What you should have said was:
Hello,
My blocked messages folder currently has 2,390 blocked messages. I don't scan through my blocked messages, and I would like it if they automatically deleted, or if they could be all purged at once, or even if I could hide them. I know that I can delete up to 200 at a time, but that gets time consuming when you have over 2,000 messages.
I have been enjoying your product and I hope it will continue to improve. Thank you for your time.
See? That would have explained your problem, and what you wanted, so you (and they) wouldn't have to waste time with suggestions you've already tried.
Now, you're second email:
First, a new bug report. The "Check Spelling" buttons do nothing.
First of all, is this email the appropriate place for bug reports for this program? Even if it is, are you aware that this "bug report" is completely useless? Assuming they actually programmed the buttons to do something (and if they didn't they need complaints, not "bug reports") they would need many more details (which version of the program are you running? your OS? did they ever work? did you get any weird error messages on installation/since? - which is why bug reports are usually filed on a form on a webpage) to even begin to work on the problem.
Moving on:
I write very clearly. I am actually a professional editor for a very large international corporation. I mostly work on technical papers and corporate documents. I earn my living by helping other people write clearly. If you have any problem understanding what I am writing, please feel free to ask for clarification.
Sure you do. Maybe you should have used your writing skills when writing these emails?
I was not asking for a way to flush the spam crap more quickly. I was making a suggestion that would significantly increase the value of your email service.
Then you should have said that. You asked for an option to toss all blocked mail, you did not say you were making a suggestion that could improve their program. They explained how to toss blocked mail in a polite manner. You should have politely explained that was not what you were asking and explained your suggestion in more detail (calling it a suggestion would have helped in getting your point across). Instead, you rant on and on, berating them for not understanding your
I think Nintendo is more likely to envision a future where the hardcore gamer is locked up in the den with an XBox console, while the rest of the family are out in the front room playing the Wii.
No, I'm pretty sure Nintendo would prefer that hardcore gamer have a DS or a second Wii of his own and be playing Metroid or Zelda while the rest of the family plays Wii Sports. Companies aren't in the habit of wishing other companies money.
Why? I said roads are self-funding. Does it really change the point significantly if it's discovered that they're only 93% self-funding? (They're not. The US Federal government has a huge gas tax that collects a lot more than the Feds spend on roads.)
I did the quotes wrong in my post, but you said that taxes more than cover road expenses, while someone else says they don't. Are we going to get sources or are we just supposed to assume you're correct?
You think Final Fantasy XII (minus the CGI) is much prettier than Zelda? Really? I have both games and I'd say Zelda edges FF out, not by that much, but then again, it is only a Gamecube game. I only suggested you look at it because it is the only realistic Wii game that's out that I could think of, but it's not a really fair comparison because they didn't upgrade the graphics when porting it from the 'cube. With the hardware being so simular to the 'cube, a lot of the early games are basically going to have 'cube level graphics, but they do have plenty of potential to work with. Not that I'm telling you to buy a Wii just because maybe in the future they'll be games you like, but keep it in mind. I've played the demo for Metroid 3, and that's looking really awesome. There's a battle with Ripley (giant dragon) where the two of you are falling down this tube and Ripley is clawing the sides of the tube to slow his decent and you're using your skills to slow your descent while at the same time you both are trying to kill eachother before you both fall to your deaths and it's really the most beautiful and innovative and amazing fight scene I've ever played. It's certainly not a PS2 game with a remote. When it comes out, you should find a game store with the demo and play it. Happy gaming!
While 600/400 = 300/200, 600-400 is more than 300-200. While it's still 1/3 more, the raw value of the difference is what changes things. For instance, if you went to the store to pick up something you thought was $10, you might not notice or care if it turns out to be $15, but if you went to a store to buy a $1000 TV, you'd probably think long and hard before coming home with a $1500 TV (YMMV, obviously the person who shows up to the store with $12 in quarters will care about the price hike of the $10 item, and the person who wants the best TV will buy best irregardless, but $500 is a bigger difference to people than $5, and $200 is a bigger difference than $100). Other than that, I think we're in agreement.
US-style health care is better for the sick and the health-care providers.
US health care is only good for the sick if they have health insurance. For the growing number of Americans without insurance, health care is all but non-existant.
In the US at least, fuel taxes are not sufficient to cover road building expenses. Roads are therefore not self-funding.
That is incorrect. Fuel taxes more than pay for the road construction.
Can we get a source, or are we just going to have an argument that consists of "They do!" "They don't!"?
I'm sure you'll change your opinion when your neighbor's house is burning and the fly embers will ignite your house if the fire is not properly contained.
They show up to the fire. If I paid the fee, they protect my house. If I didn't, they don't.
The fees should be a part of property taxes. You try telling someone whose house is burning down that you're just going to stand there and watch. You try living with it on your conscience when they run back instead to save the irreplaceable pictures of their dead mother/their baby kitten/whatever and die, knowing you could have saved them (and their photos and kittens).
And what about renters whose landlords didn't pay? How's that fair?
There's certain things a functional society should just do. Putting out fires is one of them.
Your entire post is a rehash of why the PS2 was doomed to fail. "It's too expensive compared to the DC"
To be fair, there's a whole world of difference between $300 versus $200, and $600 versus $250, or even $400. I'm a hardcore gamer. I'm married to a hardcore gamer. I have lots of friends who are hardcore gamers. Yet, even among us, $600 is too much for a console. If it's still $600 by the time FFXIII comes out I won't be buying it, and I'm very much an FF fangirl. At least I'll have DQIX, but Microsoft's not making the Dreamcast's mistakes, and Nintendo has learned from theirs, so Sony's not going to have the cakewalk they had before.
I do hope Sony survives though, just for the sake of competition, I'm just hoping they (or either of the other two, for that matter) don't do so well to have the arrogance to think they can put any price on next generation's systems and think people will still buy them.
I don't think Nintendo is interested in fighting a war.
Oh, they're still fighting a war. But instead of fighting it head-on, they're taking Sherman's tactics from the Civil War (sorry, reading Gone With the Wind) and going around their opponents, to strike from behind. They see that most of the hardcore gamers have nongamers they live with (parents, spouses, etc) and have to compromise with to get games and consoles. So, Nintendo has gone around the gamers to target the nongamers, and now the gamers suddenly find their nongamers buying Wiis and DSs, and they're all like "Cool!" and playing Zelda and Elebits on their nongamer's Wii instead of fighting them for a 360 or PS3. Nintendo doesn't ignore the hardcore gamers (remember Resident Evil on the Gamecube? Eternal Darkness? Metroid Prime? Not exactly for newbies and small children). Nintendo just sees a future where everyone is a gamer, where "gamer" is as superfluous a term as "movier", and they want to be the first thing that all these new gamers think of when they think about games.
What's a good title I can look at that shows off the high end of the video engine?
Zelda's really damn pretty, but that's not even scratching the surface of what the Wii will be able to do. Most launch titles for any system don't push it too hard. Since you seem to like FPSs, I'd recommend waiting until Metroid, that game should be impressive.
But I know you can delay menstruation by delaying the taking of the placebos.
No, you can't. The placebos are placebos. Whether you start taking them three days later or forget to take them at all, or take all 7 in one day, or even if you (assuming you're a guy) take them, they will have exactly 0 effect (unless you're allergic to red food dye or aspartame or whatever's in it). What you're thinking of is if you start taking the next batch of pills the day you would start the placebos you'll skip your period.
Well, yes and no.. there are postfertilization protections as well, so just because one ovulates doesn't mean the birth control wasn't working, just not working 100% (which it doesn't claim to).
You're right that birth control can still prevent fertilization and implantation after ovulation, but it's main method of preventing pregnancy is comprimised if she ovulates, and most women will not ovulate most months on birth control.
At any rate, the study indicated an increase in "forgetfulness" around the time of would-be ovulation, as compared to the placebos taken during menstruation.
I can't believe that. Did they ignore the women who skip the placebos altogether because they know they're placebos, or the women who "forget" a couple of placebos because they don't want to stop what they're doing to take pills that don't matter? If women forgot their pills more often then they forget their placebos then the pill's effectiveness rating would be 0%.
Actually, they do. And their eggs can even be fertilized. The fertilized eggs are just not allowed to stay atached to the uterine wall, since menstruation starts when they start taking the placebos (red pills).
The primary purpose of birth control is to prevent ovulation. Most types of birth control can also make it less likely for an egg to attach to a uterine wall, but they do not force mentruation and if a fertilized egg does get attached, then she's pregnant and birth control can't stop that (they aren't abortion pills). So in general, women on birth control do not ovulate unless their pills aren't working as effectly as they should.
I didn't mistake menstruation for ovulation, I was assuming they meant menstruation when they were referring to the other end of their cycles from ovulation (the articles actually don't say it was done the week before menstruation, just that it was done on their "least fertile" times or the "other end" from ovulation, which imply during menstruation, or right around then). I would think that your period would affect your mood and actions more than ovulation. Women don't even notice when they ovulate, but they do notice (and hate) their periods, and the side effects can start a week before and last a week after it ends. I probably dress better when I'm in the middle of my cycle, and I'm on birth control and don't ovulate anyways. Maybe they could have tried photographing a woman who's all like "I love menstruation because I can feel the power of my womanhood" (seriously, there's a song like that) and see if she dresses better on her period or other times. They could have at least found women on birth control to use as a control group without ovulation, and maybe found women who don't have periods to see if they change throughout the month without ovulation or menstruation. But I guess if they got the answer "Women look better when they don't feel like crap", that wouldn't have made quite as interesting of a headline as "Women Advertise Fertility".
Much more interesting is women's tendencies to forget to take birth control, and to have affairs during ovulation [socialpsychology.org].
When don't forget to take birth control when they ovulate; they ovulate when they forget to take birth control. If ovulating causes them to forget to take birth control, then the birth control wasn't working in the first place.
When I'm at "the other end of my cycle" aka, my period, I'm bleeding and bloated and cramping and my face is breaking out, and looking pretty is not exactly high on my list. When I'm not, looking pretty is much less of a hassle. So, not exactly rocket science here.
They ask for id where I grew up such that I was unable to purchase rated-R tickets myself. I could go were I to have an adult with me to purchase the tickets. I feel the same premise would work for video games.
The same premise does work for games. Games stores check ID before selling M-rated games. Sure, there's the occasional lazy clerk who just doesn't care, but there's also lazy clerks who forgeting to check ID at movie theaters or when selling R-rated DVDs. I don't see why people get all worked up over video games when they have the exact same system as movies.
Why are you saying "Amen" to a post and then disagree with the main point? Movie ratings don't have any laws or legal enforcement. Why should video games?
If they really are the first to come up with this particular scheme, then maybe they have a claim.
It's possible they come up with something unique that hadn't been done before. But if it was that unique, how did all three companies manage to have it standard by now? Especially since the big differences between this generation's controllers and last involve wireless (Wii's wired controllers are Gamecube controllers), so if the newest consoles infringe, the last have to infringe as well (since the ports are from last generation). So some people come up with some very unique joystick port idea, that people who've been making joysticks and consoles for 20 years haven't come up with, and somehow between the time they apply for the patent and the time it's granted it becomes standard on all major consoles? Either there's bucketloads of prior art and they just copied the design from their Playstation ports, or it's so obvious that someone who's never made a console can figure it out by staring at their Playstation, but, either way, it shouldn't have been patented.
I guess they can ding the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube and maybe Wii. But don't newer consoles use USB ports? The 360 doesn't even have joystick ports, it has (properly licensed and legally clear) USB ports instead.
The Wii has Gamecube ports, but that's not even the point. There have been consoles with joystick ports since at least the mid 70s, yet they didn't even apply for the patent until 1998. I'm gonna go patent platform shoes and then sue all the retro shoe stores. Makes as much sense.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as simple games, if Mario is complicated then I'd go with Wario Ware and Super Swing Golf and other simple looking Wii games. I can't think of a Playstation or Xbox game that is less complicated than Mario.
As for the PS3? Well, if you're an RPG fan and the PS2 was your bread and butter you have... Oblivion and hopefully FF13 to look forward to this year. If your a shooter/sports/fighting game fan, then you'd be more frugal buying a 360. I'll admit that I might be judging PS3 games too harshly because I just don't like their genres and they might really be good games for those who like that sort of thing, but I love my PS2 and in fact FF12 has seen more play this week than my Wii. Sony's gotta do something to get back all the RPG fans who adored the PS1+2, because right now the DS is looking like a more attractive platform for us, with DQ9 and being a fifth the price.
You said "Or are you claiming that you're too stupid to understand what I wrote?". Maybe that's not directly calling them stupid, but it's far from polite. In fact, nothing you said was actually polite. Your first email:
You start out with no effort to be nice, and hardly even give an effort to make sense. Your first sentence is a continuation of the subject, which is a little confusing, and you go right into rant mode without fully explaining your problem or what you want. It would be easy to assume, like Cachette's Support did, that knowing how to delete messages would solve your problem since you never said you knew how to do that and your problem seems to be that you have >2,000 messages. What you should have said was:
See? That would have explained your problem, and what you wanted, so you (and they) wouldn't have to waste time with suggestions you've already tried.
Now, you're second email:
First of all, is this email the appropriate place for bug reports for this program? Even if it is, are you aware that this "bug report" is completely useless? Assuming they actually programmed the buttons to do something (and if they didn't they need complaints, not "bug reports") they would need many more details (which version of the program are you running? your OS? did they ever work? did you get any weird error messages on installation/since? - which is why bug reports are usually filed on a form on a webpage) to even begin to work on the problem.
Moving on:
Sure you do. Maybe you should have used your writing skills when writing these emails?
Then you should have said that. You asked for an option to toss all blocked mail, you did not say you were making a suggestion that could improve their program. They explained how to toss blocked mail in a polite manner. You should have politely explained that was not what you were asking and explained your suggestion in more detail (calling it a suggestion would have helped in getting your point across). Instead, you rant on and on, berating them for not understanding your
You called the support staff stupid and you're that surprised that they dropped the nice facade?
You think Final Fantasy XII (minus the CGI) is much prettier than Zelda? Really? I have both games and I'd say Zelda edges FF out, not by that much, but then again, it is only a Gamecube game. I only suggested you look at it because it is the only realistic Wii game that's out that I could think of, but it's not a really fair comparison because they didn't upgrade the graphics when porting it from the 'cube. With the hardware being so simular to the 'cube, a lot of the early games are basically going to have 'cube level graphics, but they do have plenty of potential to work with. Not that I'm telling you to buy a Wii just because maybe in the future they'll be games you like, but keep it in mind. I've played the demo for Metroid 3, and that's looking really awesome. There's a battle with Ripley (giant dragon) where the two of you are falling down this tube and Ripley is clawing the sides of the tube to slow his decent and you're using your skills to slow your descent while at the same time you both are trying to kill eachother before you both fall to your deaths and it's really the most beautiful and innovative and amazing fight scene I've ever played. It's certainly not a PS2 game with a remote. When it comes out, you should find a game store with the demo and play it. Happy gaming!
While 600/400 = 300/200, 600-400 is more than 300-200. While it's still 1/3 more, the raw value of the difference is what changes things. For instance, if you went to the store to pick up something you thought was $10, you might not notice or care if it turns out to be $15, but if you went to a store to buy a $1000 TV, you'd probably think long and hard before coming home with a $1500 TV (YMMV, obviously the person who shows up to the store with $12 in quarters will care about the price hike of the $10 item, and the person who wants the best TV will buy best irregardless, but $500 is a bigger difference to people than $5, and $200 is a bigger difference than $100). Other than that, I think we're in agreement.
And what about renters whose landlords didn't pay? How's that fair?
There's certain things a functional society should just do. Putting out fires is one of them.
I do hope Sony survives though, just for the sake of competition, I'm just hoping they (or either of the other two, for that matter) don't do so well to have the arrogance to think they can put any price on next generation's systems and think people will still buy them.
I can't believe that. Did they ignore the women who skip the placebos altogether because they know they're placebos, or the women who "forget" a couple of placebos because they don't want to stop what they're doing to take pills that don't matter? If women forgot their pills more often then they forget their placebos then the pill's effectiveness rating would be 0%.
I didn't mistake menstruation for ovulation, I was assuming they meant menstruation when they were referring to the other end of their cycles from ovulation (the articles actually don't say it was done the week before menstruation, just that it was done on their "least fertile" times or the "other end" from ovulation, which imply during menstruation, or right around then). I would think that your period would affect your mood and actions more than ovulation. Women don't even notice when they ovulate, but they do notice (and hate) their periods, and the side effects can start a week before and last a week after it ends. I probably dress better when I'm in the middle of my cycle, and I'm on birth control and don't ovulate anyways. Maybe they could have tried photographing a woman who's all like "I love menstruation because I can feel the power of my womanhood" (seriously, there's a song like that) and see if she dresses better on her period or other times. They could have at least found women on birth control to use as a control group without ovulation, and maybe found women who don't have periods to see if they change throughout the month without ovulation or menstruation. But I guess if they got the answer "Women look better when they don't feel like crap", that wouldn't have made quite as interesting of a headline as "Women Advertise Fertility".
When I'm at "the other end of my cycle" aka, my period, I'm bleeding and bloated and cramping and my face is breaking out, and looking pretty is not exactly high on my list. When I'm not, looking pretty is much less of a hassle. So, not exactly rocket science here.
Why are you saying "Amen" to a post and then disagree with the main point? Movie ratings don't have any laws or legal enforcement. Why should video games?