What your really saying is that Vampires are deamons.... There are different monsters...but Buffy has one predominant monster a deamon
On the show, vampires are a type of demon, and demons are so varied, that saying Buffy has one predominant monster, a demon, is really kinda ludacris. Some are vampires, some are giant snake monsters, one was a girl who granted wishes to scorned women, another was a green karaoke demon, and there are many many more creative ones to name. As for Buffy only focusing on demons, they've had witches, warlocks, trolls, ghosts, robots, sorcerors, werewolves, aliens, hyena possesion, zombies, mummies, etc, and if you'ld watch the show you'ld know that.
Defying conventions will get you only so far. In Angel's case cancelled.
I doubt Angel was cancelled because it defied conventions. Buffy lasted 7 years and spawned a spin-off that lasted 5. Most shows don't that far. As for the transfer, the reason Buffy switched networks was because UPN offered more money than the WB, though the WB would have happily kept Buffy for the last two years. I'ld say that says something good about the show. Most shows aren't worth buying after 5 years.
If they'd really wanted a cliffhangar for the Glory episode they would have turned Buffy (the vampire slayer) into a vampire.
They turned her into a vampire before, also, considering she was fighting a God, I'm not sure how a vampire would have figured into it, especially a vampire that could beat her.
Here's a suggestion: Watch the show. It's really very good. Just give it a chance.
Why not just let there be a donate button on an artists page, so you could donate money to him if you liked his music.
I'ld really like to be able to donate money directly to artists. I downloaded the new Offspring cd (yes, illegally. I'm a bad girl) and it's really good and I would like to give them money for it, but apparently if I buy CD they get less than $1 and the rest of the money goes to the mean RIAA.
I'm pretty sure as long as the RIAA is around though, we're not going to be able to directly give money to artists (at least RIAA artists) because the RIAA doesn't want an option that allows them to be skipped out in being paid. Maybe someday we'll have a fairer system.
Second off, Glory was not killed because the demon dimensions were destroying the world(That's why Buffy was killed off) Glory was killed because Giles saw an opportunity, and he, unlike most TV show charactors, is smart. Each year the show got a new villian to keep things fresh, as opposed to facing the same thing again and again and have to come up with new stupid reasons why the hero didn't kill the villian and vice versa. They've done the Master of Vampires, Angel, and, after Glory, human nerds (to show that sometimes, the biggest danger is us, and not some fantasy monster).
Yes, Buffy has a preoccupation with demons. So? It's called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" not "Buffy the Farmer" or "Buffy the Anorexic Lawyer".
Yes, Buffy's vampire rules are different from Dracula's. That's why the show is named after her, not him.
Most of the time, cartrige games are traded in as just the cartrige, so I don't blame the store for not having cartrige boxes. What I hate though, my local Gamestops have been doing, is throwing away Playstation boxes and manuals. Yes, the jewel cases that probably 8 times out of 10 were traded in near perfect condition. They don't have enough space for them, so they put the CDs in little sleeves in a cardboard box and just chuck the case and manual. Now that is a shame.
He [PE instructor]has a clipboard on which he tracks the number of laps completed by each student, and at the end of the class he assigns a grade: A if you completed 15 laps, B if you completed 14 laps, C for 13 laps, D for 12 laps, and F if anything less.
That's terrible. I've never been able to run a full lap, even at my best physical shape. (I have asthma, and it was really severe when I was a child, so I've never really learned to run).
I guess I was lucky that my teachers gave us "A"s as long as we showed up, tried, and weren't mean to anyone.
There's a college radio station near where I live. It plays better music than the rest of the stations, but unfortunetly, whenever anyone talks on it it's almost entirely from scripted cards, and its usually some mini-program called "Science and YOU!" Oh well, I've never listened to radio to hear people talk anyways.
Most stores do mandate an ID check. And the government can't enforce a private company, such as the ESRB, so they would have to make their own ratings system or come up with vague discriptions such as "violence against police". Would you like to be the video game clerk who sold a "violent against police" game to a 16 year old and then got fined more then your month's wages? Didn't think so.
If parent is buying, give an information booklet or atleast tell them what kind of game it is.
Are you going to pay to make all these booklets? And as for telling the parent about the game, I used to work at a game store and I did just that. 8 out of 10 parents ignored me. If the parents really care about what's in the game, they ask.
Inform about the Live talk.
See above about parents who care. Also, games that go online say "Content may change during online play" under the rating.
Games information booklet must have screenshots of the content that prompted the rating.
See above about booklets.
violent games above kids level of vision in stores. Many stores let you grab the cover of any game and when the kids touch it and see it, they ARE going to be tempted.
Which games are violent enough to go above kids heads? Some parents think Mario is too violent for their kids. Would you like to make a list of all the games, and decide if they are violent or not? And how high should these be? There's ten year olds that are taller than me. There's a lot of things to think about besides just "Oh, violent game should be out of kids reach!"
Parents might know how responsible their kids are but they do NOT know about the ones who they play these games with
Do you mean people the kids play with online? Or do you mean kids' friends? Because game stores have absolutely nothing to do with kids's friends.
The ESRB ratings are not that complicated. Parents can easily learn them, and any game store clerk would be happy to explain it to them if they ask. The store clerk can help the parent, but the store clerk cannot be the parent.
The problem with having codes is that people don't know what they mean. In Newsweek this week they have a big article about TV, and appearently most parents think that "FV" stands for "Family Viewing" when it really means "Fantasy Violence". Ratings don't help if people can't understand them.
I think the current game rating system, while it's not always accurate (See DOA Volleyball) it's fairly comprehensive and doesn't take too much to figure out.
I really think it depends on the game. For instance, in my Top Spin (tennis) game my charactor wears this cute little K-Swiss outfit and plays in these stadiums that are covered in advertisements for MasterCard, Nike, whatever. Since this is how I assume things are in real life, it doesn't bother me. Well, I guess it bothers me that Microsoft gets even more money for this game but apparently didn't send enough to their testing division, but that's another story. As for as product placement, I'm cool.
However, if while I was playing Final Fantasy X, Tidus pulled out his Visa card and bought a Sony mp3 player at a stupid kiosk, I would have been pretty upset.
I think it's not so much his pride that is the issue, but the issue of either stopping his own business he's been working on or risk being sued for things he created on his own time. Still, I can't imagine they'ld let him change the agreement when presumably they have plenty of other sheep that have signed it and plenty more potential sheep that would.
Parent: A recent/. talked about the demise of record stores. Is the same bound to happen with movies? With legal downloading - even if it's for one-time viewing - what's the use of Blockbuster?
leifm: Figure it'll cost as much as going to Hollywood/Blockbuster and renting a DVD. Add in potential connection issues with streaming, time do dl if it's download, and then it's on a computer. I'll take renting a DVD, throwing it in and watching it on a TV. Less issues, probably the same cost. Movie downloads aren't going anywhere for several years at least, let Disney roll with MS DRM, it's going to fail anyway.
SparafucileMan: Considering most people in the U.S. don't have broadband, this seems rather premature. And would those with broadband really want to wait an hour or ten to watch what, compared to a DVD, is pixelated crap? Would you really want to invite your gf to watch some grainy compressed video or would you splurge on the $3 DVD rental?
There ya go. If I was Blockbuster, I wouldn't worry at all. =)
The average teenage girl doesn't know what Wizards of the Coast are. Also, they're selling it through Limited Too with the intentions of hiding its geek-infested origins.
So girls won't buy it because it's geeky, they won't buy it because it's stupid. Any girl who does get it will quickly realize that: A: Since the charms come with the cards, you don't actually have to do the cards to get the charms, which defeats the point of the game. B: Claire's sells cheap plastic jewerly that looks better and is probably cheaper than this stupid non-game.
-- Moral of the story: if it hadn't sucked, I would have bought two copies.
-Yet you did play it for several hours over the course of five days. Come on.
Some pirates are good about buying the things they pirate and like. I, for one, tend to pirate TV shows (I don't have cable) and, when the ones I like come out on DVD, I buy the DVD set. Not all pirates are evil, greedy bastards.
The game looks stunning. Metal surfaces shimmer, headlights paint bump-mapped patches on walls they pass over, tank rounds spew dirt into the air, and sunlight glimmers through the tree leaves.
Sounds like my Xbox version. I can see why Mac gamers would pirate with the "try before you buy" mentality, because I wouldn't pay $50 for something that sounds just like it's a port of a 3 year old game that might not even play on my new system. Besides, from what I hear, the PC port wasn't that good, so that doesn't inspire any more confidance in the MAC version.
I'll stick with my consoles anyways. They're simpler, and cheaper.
Not to be too much of a priss, but DOA Volleyball, despite popular belief, isn't a one-dimesional adult game. It has decent volleyball mechanics, and probably the best variety of charactor costumes of any game I've played (Yes, it beats out FF X-2 by a long shot in that department, despite that game's misconceptions). Also, there's about as much nudity in DOA Volleyball as there is on prime-time TV. Definately doesn't deserve a 'M' rating. Ok, I am being too much of a priss. Oh well.
Most (if not all) publishers place a blanket warning that it could cause seizures.
Most console games come with a warning, many PC games do not. None of my PC games have a warning. AccUser has said several times so far that it was a PC game. He has also said that it was the first time his son has had a seizure, and that his son has played games before. It seems that he just wants to know who labels the games so that he has more information for parenting, not so he can sue.
I'm sure he wouldn't have posted this if he knew that this would be the response he'd get. I'm sorry that some people have to assume the worst.
The plain and simple fact is that in both cases, someone is not getting paid for their work.
If I wasn't going to pay for it anyways, does that arguement still hold up?
Ok, so it's unfair that I get to use a product that I didn't pay for, but there's a difference between downloading it and shoplifting it. When you shoplift, you are taking something that cost money to make and deliver to the store. You are also preventing an actual paying customer from puchasing the item. Granted, downloading something instead of buying isn't exactly ethical, but there's a difference between downloading something and stealing it.
If copyright infringement were as rare as shoplifting,
Not that it matters for the sake of the arguement, but shoplifting is quite common.
It is the consumers who brought this on themselves by not respecting other people's rights.
Actually, customers started downloading music because they wanted their music digitally and there was no legal alternative. And the music in stores was (still is) overpriced and full of so much filler, that you have to pay $10-$15 to have one song you want. I'ld like to buy CDs but I have a hard time finding one with enough good songs that it's worth $10-$15 (or more... 8% sales tax doesn't help either).
And that's not even getting into how the the RIAA treats the artists, or that many people who use P2P are downloading songs they already have, will buy, or things that are not copyrighted or are not for sale.
I think the reason people buy more at Christmas is because they have to give gifts to each other. Especially when you're talking about children, and not spoiling them by giving them a new game the day it's released. Also, not everyone has enough money to buy $50 games whenever they want, so they wait until it comes down in price or they bug friends and family for it for Christmas.
Let me get this straight, are you seriously suggesting that being first to market now is a disadvantage?
It always was, just look at Dreamcast.
Actually, the Dreamcast is one of very few consoles to show a disadvantage by being first. Look at the 64. Look at the Gamecube. Both systems came after a Sony, and had graphics twice as good, and were by an established, competitive company. But in both cases, Sony has massively outsold them, and there is good evidence, especially in the case of the 64, that the delay had something to do with it. At the time of the PS1's release, Nintendo was by far the leading console maker, but buy the time the 64 came out, Sony had too far of a lead. If the 64 had came out at the same time as the Playstation, things would have looked a bit different.
best thing to do IMO would be to release about 3-4 years after and before PS-releases.
Since a console's lifetime tends to be 5 years, making something 3-4 years after and before is kinda hard. From the SNES to 64 (1991 - 1996) was 5 years, then the 64 to Cube (1996 - 2001) also 5 years. Sony PS1 to PS2 (1995 - 2000) also 5 years. Sega was kinda random about their release dates, and look what happened to them. So 2005 or 2006, being 4 or 5 years from the release of XBox, is a typical timeframe for them to look at. I think if they release a year or two after PS2 (2007/2008) everyone will forget about XBox and be playing their pretty PS3s. But if MS can through enough money at XBoxNext (or whatever it is) and get it out the door slightly before the PS3 and make it look about as pretty as PS3, they've got a decent shot at being the one on top for the next generation. No matter what MS does, it will be disturbed by hype from Sony, but as Sony has shown us (with the PS1) it takes just one good, smartly handled console to get to the top of the market.
The next time I see a parent buying Vice City for their 10-year-old, I swear I'm going to start flinging other games at them until they pay attention...
I used to work at a game store, and I used to do just that everytime a parent tried to buy GTA. Well, maybe I didn't actually throw things at them, but I got pretty close. I'ld make the 10-year-old drag their parent over to me, and I'ld start explaining how it's rated mature, how it's the most violent game we sell, (well, then) how you can pick up hookers and then kill them, blah blah blah, and invariably, the conversation would then be:
Parent: Is this game ok for you?
Kid: Yeah, I have the other one.
Parent: Oh, ok then.
Eventually, I stopped bothering. They're not my kids, why should I care if the parents don't? Though if one of those stupid laws about selling M games to minors gets pushed through, store clerks will have to care because they could be fined more then a month's wages for one mistake or apathetic day. But nothing could happen to a parent who buys Manhunt for their 5-year-old. Isn't life great?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with child porn is not just that it encourages child molestation, but that it implies that it is already happening.
What your really saying is that Vampires are deamons. ... There are different monsters...but Buffy has one predominant monster a deamon
On the show, vampires are a type of demon, and demons are so varied, that saying Buffy has one predominant monster, a demon, is really kinda ludacris. Some are vampires, some are giant snake monsters, one was a girl who granted wishes to scorned women, another was a green karaoke demon, and there are many many more creative ones to name. As for Buffy only focusing on demons, they've had witches, warlocks, trolls, ghosts, robots, sorcerors, werewolves, aliens, hyena possesion, zombies, mummies, etc, and if you'ld watch the show you'ld know that.
Defying conventions will get you only so far. In Angel's case cancelled.
I doubt Angel was cancelled because it defied conventions. Buffy lasted 7 years and spawned a spin-off that lasted 5. Most shows don't that far. As for the transfer, the reason Buffy switched networks was because UPN offered more money than the WB, though the WB would have happily kept Buffy for the last two years. I'ld say that says something good about the show. Most shows aren't worth buying after 5 years.
If they'd really wanted a cliffhangar for the Glory episode they would have turned Buffy (the vampire slayer) into a vampire.
They turned her into a vampire before, also, considering she was fighting a God, I'm not sure how a vampire would have figured into it, especially a vampire that could beat her.
Here's a suggestion: Watch the show. It's really very good. Just give it a chance.
Why not just let there be a donate button on an artists page, so you could donate money to him if you liked his music.
I'ld really like to be able to donate money directly to artists. I downloaded the new Offspring cd (yes, illegally. I'm a bad girl) and it's really good and I would like to give them money for it, but apparently if I buy CD they get less than $1 and the rest of the money goes to the mean RIAA.
I'm pretty sure as long as the RIAA is around though, we're not going to be able to directly give money to artists (at least RIAA artists) because the RIAA doesn't want an option that allows them to be skipped out in being paid. Maybe someday we'll have a fairer system.
*sigh*
First off, it's Gellar, not Ghellar.
Second off, Glory was not killed because the demon dimensions were destroying the world(That's why Buffy was killed off) Glory was killed because Giles saw an opportunity, and he, unlike most TV show charactors, is smart. Each year the show got a new villian to keep things fresh, as opposed to facing the same thing again and again and have to come up with new stupid reasons why the hero didn't kill the villian and vice versa. They've done the Master of Vampires, Angel, and, after Glory, human nerds (to show that sometimes, the biggest danger is us, and not some fantasy monster).
Yes, Buffy has a preoccupation with demons. So? It's called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" not "Buffy the Farmer" or "Buffy the Anorexic Lawyer".
Yes, Buffy's vampire rules are different from Dracula's. That's why the show is named after her, not him.
Ok, I'm done now.
If they build a better spam filter, even more will come.
If Hotmail is an indication of their spam technology, we have nothing to worry about.
Most of the time, cartrige games are traded in as just the cartrige, so I don't blame the store for not having cartrige boxes. What I hate though, my local Gamestops have been doing, is throwing away Playstation boxes and manuals. Yes, the jewel cases that probably 8 times out of 10 were traded in near perfect condition. They don't have enough space for them, so they put the CDs in little sleeves in a cardboard box and just chuck the case and manual. Now that is a shame.
He [PE instructor]has a clipboard on which he tracks the number of laps completed by each student, and at the end of the class he assigns a grade: A if you completed 15 laps, B if you completed 14 laps, C for 13 laps, D for 12 laps, and F if anything less.
That's terrible. I've never been able to run a full lap, even at my best physical shape. (I have asthma, and it was really severe when I was a child, so I've never really learned to run).
I guess I was lucky that my teachers gave us "A"s as long as we showed up, tried, and weren't mean to anyone.
There's a college radio station near where I live. It plays better music than the rest of the stations, but unfortunetly, whenever anyone talks on it it's almost entirely from scripted cards, and its usually some mini-program called "Science and YOU!" Oh well, I've never listened to radio to hear people talk anyways.
Mandatory ID check before M rated games sell
Most stores do mandate an ID check. And the government can't enforce a private company, such as the ESRB, so they would have to make their own ratings system or come up with vague discriptions such as "violence against police". Would you like to be the video game clerk who sold a "violent against police" game to a 16 year old and then got fined more then your month's wages? Didn't think so.
If parent is buying, give an information booklet or atleast tell them what kind of game it is.
Are you going to pay to make all these booklets? And as for telling the parent about the game, I used to work at a game store and I did just that. 8 out of 10 parents ignored me. If the parents really care about what's in the game, they ask.
Inform about the Live talk.
See above about parents who care. Also, games that go online say "Content may change during online play" under the rating.
Games information booklet must have screenshots of the content that prompted the rating.
See above about booklets.
violent games above kids level of vision in stores. Many stores let you grab the cover of any game and when the kids touch it and see it, they ARE going to be tempted.
Which games are violent enough to go above kids heads? Some parents think Mario is too violent for their kids. Would you like to make a list of all the games, and decide if they are violent or not? And how high should these be? There's ten year olds that are taller than me. There's a lot of things to think about besides just "Oh, violent game should be out of kids reach!"
Parents might know how responsible their kids are but they do NOT know about the ones who they play these games with
Do you mean people the kids play with online? Or do you mean kids' friends? Because game stores have absolutely nothing to do with kids's friends.
The ESRB ratings are not that complicated. Parents can easily learn them, and any game store clerk would be happy to explain it to them if they ask. The store clerk can help the parent, but the store clerk cannot be the parent.
The problem with having codes is that people don't know what they mean. In Newsweek this week they have a big article about TV, and appearently most parents think that "FV" stands for "Family Viewing" when it really means "Fantasy Violence". Ratings don't help if people can't understand them.
I think the current game rating system, while it's not always accurate (See DOA Volleyball) it's fairly comprehensive and doesn't take too much to figure out.
Grand Theft Auto Vice City
Mature (17+)
Blood and Gore
Strong Language
Strong Sexual Content
Violence
Rebuilding the system would only be beneficial if they cut to the chase an outlined exactly what types of objectionable content were involved.
They do
I really think it depends on the game. For instance, in my Top Spin (tennis) game my charactor wears this cute little K-Swiss outfit and plays in these stadiums that are covered in advertisements for MasterCard, Nike, whatever. Since this is how I assume things are in real life, it doesn't bother me. Well, I guess it bothers me that Microsoft gets even more money for this game but apparently didn't send enough to their testing division, but that's another story. As for as product placement, I'm cool.
However, if while I was playing Final Fantasy X, Tidus pulled out his Visa card and bought a Sony mp3 player at a stupid kiosk, I would have been pretty upset.
So that's my take on product placement.
Yay for America.
I think it's not so much his pride that is the issue, but the issue of either stopping his own business he's been working on or risk being sued for things he created on his own time. Still, I can't imagine they'ld let him change the agreement when presumably they have plenty of other sheep that have signed it and plenty more potential sheep that would.
Parent: A recent /. talked about the demise of record stores. Is the same bound to happen with movies? With legal downloading - even if it's for one-time viewing - what's the use of Blockbuster?
leifm: Figure it'll cost as much as going to Hollywood/Blockbuster and renting a DVD. Add in potential connection issues with streaming, time do dl if it's download, and then it's on a computer. I'll take renting a DVD, throwing it in and watching it on a TV. Less issues, probably the same cost. Movie downloads aren't going anywhere for several years at least, let Disney roll with MS DRM, it's going to fail anyway.
SparafucileMan: Considering most people in the U.S. don't have broadband, this seems rather premature. And would those with broadband really want to wait an hour or ten to watch what, compared to a DVD, is pixelated crap? Would you really want to invite your gf to watch some grainy compressed video or would you splurge on the $3 DVD rental?
There ya go. If I was Blockbuster, I wouldn't worry at all. =)
The average teenage girl doesn't know what Wizards of the Coast are. Also, they're selling it through Limited Too with the intentions of hiding its geek-infested origins.
So girls won't buy it because it's geeky, they won't buy it because it's stupid. Any girl who does get it will quickly realize that:
A: Since the charms come with the cards, you don't actually have to do the cards to get the charms, which defeats the point of the game.
B: Claire's sells cheap plastic jewerly that looks better and is probably cheaper than this stupid non-game.
I hate games made for girls.
-- Moral of the story: if it hadn't sucked, I would have bought two copies.
-Yet you did play it for several hours over the course of five days. Come on.
Some pirates are good about buying the things they pirate and like. I, for one, tend to pirate TV shows (I don't have cable) and, when the ones I like come out on DVD, I buy the DVD set. Not all pirates are evil, greedy bastards.
=)
The game looks stunning. Metal surfaces shimmer, headlights paint bump-mapped patches on walls they pass over, tank rounds spew dirt into the air, and sunlight glimmers through the tree leaves.
Sounds like my Xbox version. I can see why Mac gamers would pirate with the "try before you buy" mentality, because I wouldn't pay $50 for something that sounds just like it's a port of a 3 year old game that might not even play on my new system. Besides, from what I hear, the PC port wasn't that good, so that doesn't inspire any more confidance in the MAC version.
I'll stick with my consoles anyways. They're simpler, and cheaper.
Not to be too much of a priss, but DOA Volleyball, despite popular belief, isn't a one-dimesional adult game. It has decent volleyball mechanics, and probably the best variety of charactor costumes of any game I've played (Yes, it beats out FF X-2 by a long shot in that department, despite that game's misconceptions). Also, there's about as much nudity in DOA Volleyball as there is on prime-time TV. Definately doesn't deserve a 'M' rating. Ok, I am being too much of a priss. Oh well.
Most (if not all) publishers place a blanket warning that it could cause seizures.
Most console games come with a warning, many PC games do not. None of my PC games have a warning. AccUser has said several times so far that it was a PC game. He has also said that it was the first time his son has had a seizure, and that his son has played games before. It seems that he just wants to know who labels the games so that he has more information for parenting, not so he can sue.
I'm sure he wouldn't have posted this if he knew that this would be the response he'd get. I'm sorry that some people have to assume the worst.
The plain and simple fact is that in both cases, someone is not getting paid for their work.
If I wasn't going to pay for it anyways, does that arguement still hold up?
Ok, so it's unfair that I get to use a product that I didn't pay for, but there's a difference between downloading it and shoplifting it. When you shoplift, you are taking something that cost money to make and deliver to the store. You are also preventing an actual paying customer from puchasing the item. Granted, downloading something instead of buying isn't exactly ethical, but there's a difference between downloading something and stealing it.
If copyright infringement were as rare as shoplifting,
Not that it matters for the sake of the arguement, but shoplifting is quite common.
It is the consumers who brought this on themselves by not respecting other people's rights.
Actually, customers started downloading music because they wanted their music digitally and there was no legal alternative. And the music in stores was (still is) overpriced and full of so much filler, that you have to pay $10-$15 to have one song you want. I'ld like to buy CDs but I have a hard time finding one with enough good songs that it's worth $10-$15 (or more... 8% sales tax doesn't help either).
And that's not even getting into how the the RIAA treats the artists, or that many people who use P2P are downloading songs they already have, will buy, or things that are not copyrighted or are not for sale.
=)
I think the reason people buy more at Christmas is because they have to give gifts to each other. Especially when you're talking about children, and not spoiling them by giving them a new game the day it's released. Also, not everyone has enough money to buy $50 games whenever they want, so they wait until it comes down in price or they bug friends and family for it for Christmas.
=)
Let me get this straight, are you seriously suggesting that being first to market now is a disadvantage?
It always was, just look at Dreamcast.
Actually, the Dreamcast is one of very few consoles to show a disadvantage by being first. Look at the 64. Look at the Gamecube. Both systems came after a Sony, and had graphics twice as good, and were by an established, competitive company. But in both cases, Sony has massively outsold them, and there is good evidence, especially in the case of the 64, that the delay had something to do with it. At the time of the PS1's release, Nintendo was by far the leading console maker, but buy the time the 64 came out, Sony had too far of a lead. If the 64 had came out at the same time as the Playstation, things would have looked a bit different.
best thing to do IMO would be to release about 3-4 years after and before PS-releases.
Since a console's lifetime tends to be 5 years, making something 3-4 years after and before is kinda hard. From the SNES to 64 (1991 - 1996) was 5 years, then the 64 to Cube (1996 - 2001) also 5 years. Sony PS1 to PS2 (1995 - 2000) also 5 years. Sega was kinda random about their release dates, and look what happened to them. So 2005 or 2006, being 4 or 5 years from the release of XBox, is a typical timeframe for them to look at. I think if they release a year or two after PS2 (2007/2008) everyone will forget about XBox and be playing their pretty PS3s. But if MS can through enough money at XBoxNext (or whatever it is) and get it out the door slightly before the PS3 and make it look about as pretty as PS3, they've got a decent shot at being the one on top for the next generation. No matter what MS does, it will be disturbed by hype from Sony, but as Sony has shown us (with the PS1) it takes just one good, smartly handled console to get to the top of the market.
I'm liking Sword of Mana myself. Though Fire Emblem's more like Tactics since it's a strategy RPG unlike Golden Sun or Sword of Mana.
The next time I see a parent buying Vice City for their 10-year-old, I swear I'm going to start flinging other games at them until they pay attention...
I used to work at a game store, and I used to do just that everytime a parent tried to buy GTA. Well, maybe I didn't actually throw things at them, but I got pretty close. I'ld make the 10-year-old drag their parent over to me, and I'ld start explaining how it's rated mature, how it's the most violent game we sell, (well, then) how you can pick up hookers and then kill them, blah blah blah, and invariably, the conversation would then be:
Parent: Is this game ok for you?
Kid: Yeah, I have the other one.
Parent: Oh, ok then.
Eventually, I stopped bothering. They're not my kids, why should I care if the parents don't? Though if one of those stupid laws about selling M games to minors gets pushed through, store clerks will have to care because they could be fined more then a month's wages for one mistake or apathetic day. But nothing could happen to a parent who buys Manhunt for their 5-year-old. Isn't life great?