What has Nintendo done to their classic franchises?!
So far, they've got one Zelda game and one Mario game, and both are not really considered proper successors to their respective franchises!
First of all, they have two Zelda games (which is more than they had for the SNES. Speaking of the SNES, they only had one "real" Mario game for that as well). Metroid would also be considered a classic franchise too. Second of all, who decides if a game isn't a "proper successor"?
I wanted so badly to have some good ol' classic Mario brought to the new console generation, but they blew it.
I'ld love to see some good 2d Mario back again, but that's something I'ld expect to see on the GBA or DS, not the Gamecube, so it didn't disapoint me when Super Mario Sunshine was a 3d platformer and much like Mario 64.
Oh well. I really hope Nintendo gets their shit together.
The Gamecube's a good system with good games. If you don't like it, go play something else.
Re:Movie ratings, can you find them?
on
The Law as a Parent
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
People like the movie rating system because they're used to it. It's been around for like 60 years, and everyone knows what "PG13" means, even though that's a lot more complicated than "Teen". Of course, if they spent five seconds and looked at the box they'ld realize that the game rating system is rather self-explanatory. But that takes too much effort.
Re:Xbox 1 price history
on
Xbox 2 for $400?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
People should stop talking about "winners" and "losers" in the console industry. All three make a ton of money (well, maybe not XBox, but whatever) and none of them died. So the winners are us, because we have choices, and competion keeps prices down for us. =)
Nintendo finally gets Square to make a game for the GCN, and.... they release that absolutely abhorrent Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles.... it could've been fun, but having the game designed from the ground up around multiplayer with multiple GBAs and link cables is, I believe, the reason the game was so shockingly bad.
The GBAs were not the reason it was bad, and it's not even that bad if you played it multiplayer. Legand of Zelda: Four Swords uses GBAs, and it's one of the best games I've ever played.
Maybe I'm just a silly fangirl, but I think the gamecube has better games than any other system. I've got a PS2 for Final Fantasy, and an XBox for Dead or Alive, but most of the rest of their game are either boring or are on Cube too. So I don't understand when people rant that the Cube doesn't have enough good games. Maybe I just like different things than other people.
Ultimately, when you "buy" from Steam you buy directly from Valve, which means they can decide to sell you the game or not - as they see fit.
Except they've already sold you the game, in at least some of these cases. I don't think it's fair for someone to pay $50 or whatever they paid, and then have the game not work at all. Valve should issue refunds for the people that legitimately bought the game.
The problem is, since appearently everyone's accepting XP activation, and appearently lots of people are accepting Steam activation, that next time around MS/Valve/whoever is going to take activation a little bit farther. And then a little bit farther. And I kinda forget where I was going with that. Yeah, I think activation is bad.
If your girlfriend/wife/whoever bothers you that much, then dump her. Don't bitch about her at a board mostly populated by men. Find a woman who doesn't drive you nuts. Then you won't have to bitch.
Just so you know, even if you had an AOL account they couldn't have helped you. My fiance has an AOL account, and he spent HOURS talking to tech support to get my AIM name back, and they couldn't. So, don't feel bad that you didn't give them money to not help you.
" No, I did not RTFA. I guess it was just wishful thinking that there's a lady out there who even knows the names of half those games."
I do. I even like most of them. Girls play games too. =)
"Watch Zelda get Fsck'd by Metroid!"
Eek. I hope you're talking about Samus too. Now I have scary images of Princess Zelda having sex with metroids (the icky blob things). I hope you're happy.
" EQ2's target market, as stated by Sony, is People who tried EQ1, and left."
Haha! Yes, people who try a game and don't like it, always buy the sequel!! Haha!
Not to mention, most of the people that leave EQ, leave because it steals their fricking life away. EQ2 will probably be no different, or else it's not worth the subscription price.
Really, not everyone has the kind of money that makes the possibility of leaving something that costs $200 on the bus. You have sunglasses that cost more? Than you have way too much money. My engagement ring didn't even cost $200.
A person can boycott a product for any reason they want. It's not like they're saying this game should be banned, they're just saying they don't want to play anymore. Would you like to play a game were people insult and discriminate against you?
Appearently you and I have very differnt ideas about sex and love. My love isn't a lie just because me and my husband don't want kids, though I don't think I can convince you of that.
And yet- once couples discover the idea of the fullness of sex being a method of fullfilling life, few rarely return.
Actually, there's a lot of couples who have 2-3 kids, and then use some form of birth control to not have any more kids. I don't know anyone who has more than 4 kids, so assuming that's not just dumb luck, I don't know anyone who after discovering "the idea of the fullness of sex being a method of fullfilling life" hasn't "returned".
The world isn't overpopulated- the truth is that we've got a few people who are way too greedy is the ONLY problem- we already grow enough food for twice our current population.
That could be possible. Though I doubt we could get the food and other needs to everyone in an equitable manner - communism tried that and failed miserably.
I think feelings are important for any moralistic arguement. Why is killing bad? Why is stealing bad? If I could scientically prove with hard evidence that, say, killing George Bush would be better for the world, would that make it moral? Or, who cares about anyone else, what if it was just better for me? But I do care about other people, I *feel* that it is wrong to hurt them.
Birth control in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is a denial of love.
Sorry, you're talking to a girl who's been in a loving, monogamous relationship for years with birth control. My father and stepmother have a loving monogamous relationship while using birth control for about 20 years. It's not a denial of love.
It's a denial of feelings for no good purpose and without evidence- and can lead to alienation of the spouse and divorce.
I don't see how it's a denial of feelings, and I see even less that it's for no good purpose or without evidence. I can't afford to raise a kid right now (a purpose) and it definately has evidence to back up that it works.
It's no accident that one of the effects of the pill on society was an increase in the divorce rate.
Correlation != Causation.
you don't know if using birth control is merely a smart move on your part or removing a Jesus Christ or Ghandi from the future.
I also could create the next Jesus Christ or Ghandi by sleeping with the next hot guy I see at a party. Or I could just wind up with gonorrhea. I don't know what effect my actions will have in the long run, but I try to do the best with what i know. Currently, my dinners tend to consist of 30 boxes of macaroni and cheese. If I had a kid, s/he would probably starve. Anyways, the world is overpopulated as it is, and I'm planning on adopting when I do have kids.
Plants do not have a nervous system. The nervous system is what allows us to feel pain. Plants also do not have a brain, which is what makes one capable of thought. If you can prove to me that plants can feel pain and think, I will rethink my position.
Either don't keep them at all, or don't kill them- but either way they shouldn't be alive to begin with.
I don't have all the answers, and I know if everyone stopped eating meat today that what to do with all the farm animals would be a big problem. But just because I don't have the answer doesn't change how I feel about it.
What I'm really arguing for here (which I should have explained earlier) is birth control, not abortion. Hormonal birth control does occansionally let an egg be fertillized, but doesn't let it implant. Most people who believe life begins at conception believe that birth control that does this is the same as abortion. Do you believe it's the same?
It's not right to kill anything for sport, or for economic advantage. It is right to kill for food- vegetarians even do it, killing plants for food.
Plants don't feel pain. An embryo right after conception can't feel pain. Animals can.
Actually, that's the cycle of life and our place in the food chain.
Humans are much better suited as herbivores than carnivores. Most other primates are herbivores.
If you had grown up on a farm instead of in the city, you'd understand that the only reason some types of animals have been kept alive FAR PAST THEIR NATURAL EXTINCTION POINT, is for food.
I understand that. But does that make it ok to kill them?
All you need to see this is spend a few years on a farm- and see how incredibly hard it is to keep these animals alive.
Is it really that hard to keep them alive? Some food, decent shelter, regular vet care? If it's really much harder why would anyone bother?
Plants can't think or feel pain, so I don't find it immoral to kill them (within reason - I don't think one should clear-cut a forest for no reason whatsoever). Animals can think and fell pain, so I find it immoral to kill them (within reason, if a bear was going to kill me, I wouldn't have a problem killing it). Humans and later-stage fetuses can think and feel pain, so I find it immoral to kill them (within reason, if a woman's going to die without an abortion, I think she should have an abortion). Embryos cannot think or feel pain. An egg right after fertilization isn't much different from an egg right before fertilization (still microscopic, still can't think or feel pain) so I don't think any differently about them. Basically, I think abortions (and "abortive" birth control) are fine until the fetus can think and/or feel pain.
creditless "bank card" (I don't know an equivalent English term for that one, that's a direct translation)
It's a debit card.
One difference between Finland and America is that Finland isn't that much bigger than one of our states. We have state ID cards here, and we use them much like you use your national ID cards. I guess a US national ID card wouldn't be that much different than a multinational European card, but I'ld be worried about having everyone's data in one database. That seems to be begging a security breach. Also, we're (the US) getting closer to requiring everyone at all times to having identification to show, despite the fact that it's against the Constitution. And more and more information on one little card and with that information being so paramount to daily life, it just makes identity theft a bigger and bigger problem.
Actually, the sperm and the egg are just as alive before and after fertilization. And if life is so important, then why is it ok to kill an animal that is clearly alive and can clearly feel pain but not kill a organism with only a couple of cells that can't even feel pain or think?
The murderer gets a free public defender though. Copyright infringers don't.
And what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now they're guilty because the police siezed their equipment?
Slashdot Mirror
What has Nintendo done to their classic franchises?!
So far, they've got one Zelda game and one Mario game, and both are not really considered proper successors to their respective franchises!
First of all, they have two Zelda games (which is more than they had for the SNES. Speaking of the SNES, they only had one "real" Mario game for that as well). Metroid would also be considered a classic franchise too. Second of all, who decides if a game isn't a "proper successor"?
I wanted so badly to have some good ol' classic Mario brought to the new console generation, but they blew it.
I'ld love to see some good 2d Mario back again, but that's something I'ld expect to see on the GBA or DS, not the Gamecube, so it didn't disapoint me when Super Mario Sunshine was a 3d platformer and much like Mario 64.
Oh well. I really hope Nintendo gets their shit together.
The Gamecube's a good system with good games. If you don't like it, go play something else.
People like the movie rating system because they're used to it. It's been around for like 60 years, and everyone knows what "PG13" means, even though that's a lot more complicated than "Teen". Of course, if they spent five seconds and looked at the box they'ld realize that the game rating system is rather self-explanatory. But that takes too much effort.
People should stop talking about "winners" and "losers" in the console industry. All three make a ton of money (well, maybe not XBox, but whatever) and none of them died. So the winners are us, because we have choices, and competion keeps prices down for us. =)
Nintendo finally gets Square to make a game for the GCN, and .... they release that absolutely abhorrent Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles. ... it could've been fun, but having the game designed from the ground up around multiplayer with multiple GBAs and link cables is, I believe, the reason the game was so shockingly bad.
The GBAs were not the reason it was bad, and it's not even that bad if you played it multiplayer. Legand of Zelda: Four Swords uses GBAs, and it's one of the best games I've ever played.
Maybe I'm just a silly fangirl, but I think the gamecube has better games than any other system. I've got a PS2 for Final Fantasy, and an XBox for Dead or Alive, but most of the rest of their game are either boring or are on Cube too. So I don't understand when people rant that the Cube doesn't have enough good games. Maybe I just like different things than other people.
The original metroid, by the way, is not lousy.
The orginal metroid isn't lousy, but having to connect both metroid prime and fusion in order to play it is.
Ultimately, when you "buy" from Steam you buy directly from Valve, which means they can decide to sell you the game or not - as they see fit.
Except they've already sold you the game, in at least some of these cases. I don't think it's fair for someone to pay $50 or whatever they paid, and then have the game not work at all. Valve should issue refunds for the people that legitimately bought the game.
The problem is, since appearently everyone's accepting XP activation, and appearently lots of people are accepting Steam activation, that next time around MS/Valve/whoever is going to take activation a little bit farther. And then a little bit farther. And I kinda forget where I was going with that. Yeah, I think activation is bad.
If your girlfriend/wife/whoever bothers you that much, then dump her. Don't bitch about her at a board mostly populated by men. Find a woman who doesn't drive you nuts. Then you won't have to bitch.
Just so you know, even if you had an AOL account they couldn't have helped you. My fiance has an AOL account, and he spent HOURS talking to tech support to get my AIM name back, and they couldn't. So, don't feel bad that you didn't give them money to not help you.
I don't like the color red, so I'm voting for Kerry.
I agree. It takes alot to apologize, alot more than just, say, sueing someone. So, props to Nintendo. Yay.
" No, I did not RTFA. I guess it was just wishful thinking that there's a lady out there who even knows the names of half those games." I do. I even like most of them. Girls play games too. =)
"Watch Zelda get Fsck'd by Metroid!" Eek. I hope you're talking about Samus too. Now I have scary images of Princess Zelda having sex with metroids (the icky blob things). I hope you're happy.
I really hope the poster meant Samus and not the Metroids. Eek, that's scarier than most hentai.
" EQ2's target market, as stated by Sony, is People who tried EQ1, and left."
Haha! Yes, people who try a game and don't like it, always buy the sequel!! Haha!
Not to mention, most of the people that leave EQ, leave because it steals their fricking life away. EQ2 will probably be no different, or else it's not worth the subscription price.
Really, not everyone has the kind of money that makes the possibility of leaving something that costs $200 on the bus. You have sunglasses that cost more? Than you have way too much money. My engagement ring didn't even cost $200.
A person can boycott a product for any reason they want. It's not like they're saying this game should be banned, they're just saying they don't want to play anymore. Would you like to play a game were people insult and discriminate against you?
Appearently you and I have very differnt ideas about sex and love. My love isn't a lie just because me and my husband don't want kids, though I don't think I can convince you of that.
And yet- once couples discover the idea of the fullness of sex being a method of fullfilling life, few rarely return.
Actually, there's a lot of couples who have 2-3 kids, and then use some form of birth control to not have any more kids. I don't know anyone who has more than 4 kids, so assuming that's not just dumb luck, I don't know anyone who after discovering "the idea of the fullness of sex being a method of fullfilling life" hasn't "returned".
The world isn't overpopulated- the truth is that we've got a few people who are way too greedy is the ONLY problem- we already grow enough food for twice our current population.
That could be possible. Though I doubt we could get the food and other needs to everyone in an equitable manner - communism tried that and failed miserably.
There you go back into FEELING.
I think feelings are important for any moralistic arguement. Why is killing bad? Why is stealing bad? If I could scientically prove with hard evidence that, say, killing George Bush would be better for the world, would that make it moral? Or, who cares about anyone else, what if it was just better for me? But I do care about other people, I *feel* that it is wrong to hurt them.
Birth control in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is a denial of love.
Sorry, you're talking to a girl who's been in a loving, monogamous relationship for years with birth control. My father and stepmother have a loving monogamous relationship while using birth control for about 20 years. It's not a denial of love.
It's a denial of feelings for no good purpose and without evidence- and can lead to alienation of the spouse and divorce.
I don't see how it's a denial of feelings, and I see even less that it's for no good purpose or without evidence. I can't afford to raise a kid right now (a purpose) and it definately has evidence to back up that it works.
It's no accident that one of the effects of the pill on society was an increase in the divorce rate.
Correlation != Causation.
you don't know if using birth control is merely a smart move on your part or removing a Jesus Christ or Ghandi from the future.
I also could create the next Jesus Christ or Ghandi by sleeping with the next hot guy I see at a party. Or I could just wind up with gonorrhea. I don't know what effect my actions will have in the long run, but I try to do the best with what i know. Currently, my dinners tend to consist of 30 boxes of macaroni and cheese. If I had a kid, s/he would probably starve. Anyways, the world is overpopulated as it is, and I'm planning on adopting when I do have kids.
But like in all things, there are no absolutes
Agreed.
Plants do not have a nervous system. The nervous system is what allows us to feel pain. Plants also do not have a brain, which is what makes one capable of thought. If you can prove to me that plants can feel pain and think, I will rethink my position.
Either don't keep them at all, or don't kill them- but either way they shouldn't be alive to begin with.
I don't have all the answers, and I know if everyone stopped eating meat today that what to do with all the farm animals would be a big problem. But just because I don't have the answer doesn't change how I feel about it.
What I'm really arguing for here (which I should have explained earlier) is birth control, not abortion. Hormonal birth control does occansionally let an egg be fertillized, but doesn't let it implant. Most people who believe life begins at conception believe that birth control that does this is the same as abortion. Do you believe it's the same?
It's not right to kill anything for sport, or for economic advantage. It is right to kill for food- vegetarians even do it, killing plants for food.
Plants don't feel pain. An embryo right after conception can't feel pain. Animals can.
Actually, that's the cycle of life and our place in the food chain.
Humans are much better suited as herbivores than carnivores. Most other primates are herbivores.
If you had grown up on a farm instead of in the city, you'd understand that the only reason some types of animals have been kept alive FAR PAST THEIR NATURAL EXTINCTION POINT, is for food.
I understand that. But does that make it ok to kill them?
All you need to see this is spend a few years on a farm- and see how incredibly hard it is to keep these animals alive.
Is it really that hard to keep them alive? Some food, decent shelter, regular vet care? If it's really much harder why would anyone bother?
Plants can't think or feel pain, so I don't find it immoral to kill them (within reason - I don't think one should clear-cut a forest for no reason whatsoever). Animals can think and fell pain, so I find it immoral to kill them (within reason, if a bear was going to kill me, I wouldn't have a problem killing it). Humans and later-stage fetuses can think and feel pain, so I find it immoral to kill them (within reason, if a woman's going to die without an abortion, I think she should have an abortion). Embryos cannot think or feel pain. An egg right after fertilization isn't much different from an egg right before fertilization (still microscopic, still can't think or feel pain) so I don't think any differently about them. Basically, I think abortions (and "abortive" birth control) are fine until the fetus can think and/or feel pain.
creditless "bank card" (I don't know an equivalent English term for that one, that's a direct translation)
It's a debit card.
One difference between Finland and America is that Finland isn't that much bigger than one of our states. We have state ID cards here, and we use them much like you use your national ID cards. I guess a US national ID card wouldn't be that much different than a multinational European card, but I'ld be worried about having everyone's data in one database. That seems to be begging a security breach. Also, we're (the US) getting closer to requiring everyone at all times to having identification to show, despite the fact that it's against the Constitution. And more and more information on one little card and with that information being so paramount to daily life, it just makes identity theft a bigger and bigger problem.
Actually, the sperm and the egg are just as alive before and after fertilization. And if life is so important, then why is it ok to kill an animal that is clearly alive and can clearly feel pain but not kill a organism with only a couple of cells that can't even feel pain or think?
The murderer gets a free public defender though. Copyright infringers don't. And what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now they're guilty because the police siezed their equipment?
And what if you're innocent? You can't even get a public defender in civil court. And the police should not be involved in civil cases.