Obviously you should consider becoming a red blooded American. We invented the atomic bomb and freedom fries. All the jerk Europeans seem to have invented are Communism, Fascism, and a social welfare net to provide adequate health coverage for all of its people.
Better? The only thing positive the game offers is online play. Meanwhile, they ruined local battle mode by forcing people to play against AI rather then their friends and they removed the extra character from the car, limiting local multiplayer and the number of items one can carry. The game is otherwise identical to the original.
I will admit that it is only marginally worse then the Gamecube version but one should hope for allot more from a sequel. Unfortunately, the system is so underpowered that it can't do anything that the Gamecube version didn't.
I agree with you that these are really fun games with lots of depth. My only problem is that there aren't more of these. What sells the system is the mini-game game and that's because the casual gamer doesn't play their system often enough to realize that these games have no depth.
Argh. Your post embodies my dislike of the system. It's not fun over lengthy periods of time. I suppose if all you ever do is play it 10 minutes at a stretch it's the perfect system for you but for those of us looking for a system with some depth, it offers very little.
As for those of us looking for depth being "addicted to gaming", I think you're ridiculous. You might as well group us with people who enjoy reading for over 10 minutes. If you enjoy a quick, shallow experience with gaming, that's great and all but please refrain from insulting those who want a more fulfilling experience by referring to them as addicts.
I supposes I can see how one could put Mario Kart into the mini game category (although I would disagree), but Paper Mario? You've never played Paper Mario if you consider it a mini game based game. It's no more one then the modern Final Fantasy games.
"The Wii has changed the definition of what makes a good game."
No, they just came out with something new, accessible to the masses, and flashy that looks really great. Unfortunately, most developers seem to have only been able to create games with almost zero depth (aside from shooters as stated above) that take real advantage of these features. In the end, these features have proven to be a great gimmick but have not improved gameplay in any substantial way aside from making light gun style shooters more prolific. Most people, in my experience (and this is for gamers and non gamers alike), get bored with the system pretty quick because there really aren't very many good titles. Here's someone else commenting on their experience supporting my claims: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1009873&cid=25548855 .
"Nintendo proved that there was a huge market waiting for games that are relatively easy to produce, fun to play, and very profitable (and unfortunately, a lot of business players have forgotten how to make and sell those)."
Actually, they did no such thing. Their consoles sales are quite high but their games sales are actually fairly low for such a "popular" system. They are selling consoles to people who don't play games often enough to warrant buying several games. I.E. people who don't play games often enough to realize that the titles they bought the system for don't have any depth.
Metal Gear Solid 4 and Metroid Prime 3 are great. Those kinds of games aren't going anywhere. But myself, and a lot of other people, are glad that games based on fun gameplay concepts have a home again.
As for your comment on "fun gameplay concepts" having a home again, you're ridiculous. As if no one finds Metal Gear Solid 4 or Metroid 3 fun. Shoot, I don't even play either of those games because I don't enjoy them but I won't sit here and say that those who do enjoy them dislike "fun" or enjoy "unfun" games. Furthermore, all you have to do is ad up the sales numbers for these "unfun" games and compare them to most of those " fun" games to find that Nintendo makes allot more money off of the core gamers who enjoy those types of games then they do with most casual gamers.
As for Heavenly Sword, I have no comments because I have not played the game.
I have a number of friends who own the system and while it was massively popular for a while no one touches their systems any more (meanwhile their PC's and 360's get plenty of use). I've heard of this happening for quite a few people outside my social circle as well.
Don't get me wrong, there were few people who were stronger supporters of the Wii when it was first coming out with it's new motion control setup. Unfortunately, it seems like all that developers have been able to do with it is create a bunch of crappy mini games where the only point seems to be to flail ones limbs around. The only thing the system does well is shooters (given that every other system has given up on the light gun) while they have been unable to come up with anything compelling in terms of sequels for their major franchises. Shoot, they even managed to release sequels to major franchises (I am thinking of Paper Mario and Mario Kart specifically here but I am sure there are others) that were significantly worse than their Gamecube counter parts.
Yeah, because us Democrats hate programs essential to our national security. I know the second I read this (being a Democrat myself) I said "National security is stupid. Protecting vital communication tools is stupid. We should spend all of this money on art!"
Wait, I didn't think any of that. I thought that this was a vital program and that you're an idiot who can't spell Democrat properly and makes retarded assumptions.
Agreed. I'm a bit of a liberal and still loath the idea of bailing out people with no fiscal restraint and likewise believe that these types of programs are essential to our national security.
Is it just me that has no taste in movies or is it the bulk of the series' core fan base (who don't like them as well) and all of the critics who gave the new trilogy bad reviews? How about the few reviewers how gave a movie or several of the movies descent scores but ones that were lower then the phenomenal reviews the original trilogy received? Where do they fall in all of this?
If people equate freedom of speech with bot having ones internet connection choked by monitoring software, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree.'"
Alright, I'm not sure what you mean by "best" in this instance. Do you mean best movie in an absolutely horrible follow up trilogy to a trilogy that was critically, highly successful and one that kept its core fan base happy throughout its series?
Otherwise, I have no frame of reference to understand what you are saying.
You know what, it's a shame that you didn't get modded troll for this crap. And that's exactly what it is, crap.
Wow, that's a strong start. I know myself and everyone else is taking you more seriously now, rather than less. Why don't we start calling each other names as well?
Of course maybe you are being ironic in calling me a troll in such a fashion and this all just went right over my head.
First you start off basically stating that you know his motivation behind something when clearly you don't.
Isn't that what you are doing in proclaiming his honest intentions?
Secondly, most people would use the word projector for the unit because that's what it is. That's the accepted term for it and there are thousands of references made to that exact term in relation to a planetarium by doing a simple Google search. This isn't a made up term.
I wish I had an example on hand for this but I don't (and this is not important enough for me to spend a bunch of time digging for an example) but have you ever seen those surveys in which a group is asked a question given minimal info and most people in it give a negative response? Then a similar group is asked the same question but with greater depth and they generally answer in a positive manner. The term "welfare" is a good example of this where many people have a negative impression in regards to it but then turn around and express their support of a wide variety of welfare programs.
The point I am making with my ramblings is that I think most people have an impression of a projector as a cheap device, even when mentioned in conjunction with a planetarium and by mentioning a large price tag without saying a bit about why it has such a large price tag, it seems to me he's begging for a knee-jerk negative reaction from the crowd.
If anything your line about Republicans hating intellectuals is a vastly more bogus statement than McCain calling it a projector.
The latest fad for Republicans right now seems to be to label Democrats as elitist and out of touch with regular Americans and that the real, honest American is McCain's Joe Six-Pack. Do you really think the archetype, Joe Six-Pack, is intellectually inclined in any way? Furthermore, there is a constant push by many conservatives in this country to get creationism taught in science classes and to have the class curriculum cast strong doubt on evolutionary theory. Really I could go on and on with little examples like this that all seem to ad up.
If you really held any value in what you said you'd be honest and admit that it's YOU who are wrong.
Huh? Are you saying I'm wrong because I disagree with you? I'm not following.
...That's why I had a job. I didn't get any free ride as my family made too much money but I had to make my own way through school. So don't come off with a holy than thou attitude. I feel bad for the honest welfare recepient who wants to get ahead but finds it difficult but the vast majority of these people have no such aspirations and I'm helping to keep them alive so that I can also pay for their cancer and heart disease treatments. Ain't life grand?
On this point I guess I ran away with a misunderstanding on my part (so my bad on this) although I would disagree with the "vast majority" comment. I am actually currently working at a grocery store finishing off what's left of my degree and I see the same thing you describe with people abusing their food cards buying shrimp platters and deli sandwiches. I have not seen anything to suggest, however, that these people represent the "vast majority" of welfare recipients.
I didn't go to the planetarium as a child. I had a night sky to look at. My interest in astronomy wasn't fostered by people throwing money at me telling me to find a place in life. I did that on my own. If a kid can't look up at the night sky and see the wonder in it all the planetarium isn't going to make a damn bit of difference and you know
"He did mention that it was for a planetarium the time I seen him mention it. If you can't put 2 and 2 together to get what he was talking about it probably didn't matter what he called it."
I disagree. He chose the wording projector specifically because it implies a cheap device and therefore enforces the idea that this is wasteful spending. Plus, by questioning an institution devoted to intellectual pursuits he gets to attack those darn intellectuals modern Republicans seem to hate so much.
"Secondly, for all the bitching and moaning I see going on around here about space exploration being a drain funds for fattening up the poor, I find it odd that most slashdotters don't see they value in buying a couple thousand PCs and copies of Starry Night Backyard for each one of them for 3 million."
You seem to be implying that spending money making sure American's aren't living in absolute poverty (thus reducing the chances that their children become criminals) is more important than a space station that could easily be replaced by cheap unmanned satellites and a major push by NASA to go back to the moon to address our insecurities in regards to China's proposed landing there decades after we have. Is that correct or am I missing something?
"I think the planetarium, just like the public library, is becoming more and more outmoded by the home PC."
Have you ever seen a young child at a planetarium? Especially an academically inclined one? I can think of few better ways of addressing the United State's lack luster performance in turning out scientists and engineers than to expose children to stuff like this. We are a long ways off in home PC technology in instilling the awe of the universe that a planetarium can provide.
and by period you mean "for a piece of crap series that was critically speaking a bomb and was reviled by the majority of the series' core fan base", right? Otherwise I have no idea what you could possibly be getting at.
While I consider the European colonial movement of the 15th through 20th centuries to be a bad thing in a general sense and the source of many of the problems we see today in the third world, in some ways stuff like this makes me wish they had held onto the world a bit longer to help further purge these regions of their backward ways much like how the Brits outlawed the practice in India of forcing women to dive on their dead husbands funeral pyres (there's a specific name for this in India but I forget what it is). While I am sure there are a few backward regions of India where this still happens occasionally the practice today has been all but eliminated.
While I certainly don't see the West as the end all of morals and we could certainly stand to improve in many ways I am fully comfortable in taking the moral high ground in this situation and stating that this event is just plain wrong. Part of me really wants to force these people, at gun point if need be, to change their ways. Of course doing this opens up many more cans of worms but I can't help but get frustrated by things like this.
I've tried a few different major MMO's (including WOW) through lent copies from friends, running characters through to fairly high levels and based on my own experiences there is a huge difference in quality and immersiveness between the story telling in single player RPGs and MMOs. In addition, getting involved with MMO "lore" always seemed tedious and boring to me while I've rarely shied away from it in a single player experience.
Not exactly, given that they arrived at the logical conclusion to a "too much story" problem which is to just make what will basically be expansions if I had to guess. As for shelling out more money for three different releases, we'll have to wait and see if it's worth it just like any other game.
Yeah but MMO players play their one or two games for years. Those of us who loath the genre and have no desire to pay monthly fees for a game we've already payed for generally play through our games in months or even weeks. While MMO players happily run about in Eve online those of us who don't play those types of games have to wait longer and longer periods of time for new games as more and more developers jump on the MMO bandwagon to milk those monthly payments. Shoot, we'd probably be patiently waiting for Starcraft 3 or 4 if it weren't for WOW.
I hope this doesn't put off another Knight of the Old Republic game. I have no desire to pay a monthly fee to play in the Star Wars universe but on the other hand I loved the two KOTOR games that were made....and seriously, do we really need another MMO out there? I hope they at least do something original with this.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha. I came home from a poker game a fair bit tipsy and wrote that. A bit over the top but at least I was mostly coherent.
Obviously you should consider becoming a red blooded American. We invented the atomic bomb and freedom fries. All the jerk Europeans seem to have invented are Communism, Fascism, and a social welfare net to provide adequate health coverage for all of its people.
Better? The only thing positive the game offers is online play. Meanwhile, they ruined local battle mode by forcing people to play against AI rather then their friends and they removed the extra character from the car, limiting local multiplayer and the number of items one can carry. The game is otherwise identical to the original.
I will admit that it is only marginally worse then the Gamecube version but one should hope for allot more from a sequel. Unfortunately, the system is so underpowered that it can't do anything that the Gamecube version didn't.
I agree with you that these are really fun games with lots of depth. My only problem is that there aren't more of these. What sells the system is the mini-game game and that's because the casual gamer doesn't play their system often enough to realize that these games have no depth.
Argh. Your post embodies my dislike of the system. It's not fun over lengthy periods of time. I suppose if all you ever do is play it 10 minutes at a stretch it's the perfect system for you but for those of us looking for a system with some depth, it offers very little.
As for those of us looking for depth being "addicted to gaming", I think you're ridiculous. You might as well group us with people who enjoy reading for over 10 minutes. If you enjoy a quick, shallow experience with gaming, that's great and all but please refrain from insulting those who want a more fulfilling experience by referring to them as addicts.
I supposes I can see how one could put Mario Kart into the mini game category (although I would disagree), but Paper Mario? You've never played Paper Mario if you consider it a mini game based game. It's no more one then the modern Final Fantasy games.
"The Wii has changed the definition of what makes a good game."
No, they just came out with something new, accessible to the masses, and flashy that looks really great. Unfortunately, most developers seem to have only been able to create games with almost zero depth (aside from shooters as stated above) that take real advantage of these features. In the end, these features have proven to be a great gimmick but have not improved gameplay in any substantial way aside from making light gun style shooters more prolific. Most people, in my experience (and this is for gamers and non gamers alike), get bored with the system pretty quick because there really aren't very many good titles. Here's someone else commenting on their experience supporting my claims: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1009873&cid=25548855 .
"Nintendo proved that there was a huge market waiting for games that are relatively easy to produce, fun to play, and very profitable (and unfortunately, a lot of business players have forgotten how to make and sell those)."
Actually, they did no such thing. Their consoles sales are quite high but their games sales are actually fairly low for such a "popular" system. They are selling consoles to people who don't play games often enough to warrant buying several games. I.E. people who don't play games often enough to realize that the titles they bought the system for don't have any depth.
Metal Gear Solid 4 and Metroid Prime 3 are great. Those kinds of games aren't going anywhere. But myself, and a lot of other people, are glad that games based on fun gameplay concepts have a home again.
As for your comment on "fun gameplay concepts" having a home again, you're ridiculous. As if no one finds Metal Gear Solid 4 or Metroid 3 fun. Shoot, I don't even play either of those games because I don't enjoy them but I won't sit here and say that those who do enjoy them dislike "fun" or enjoy "unfun" games. Furthermore, all you have to do is ad up the sales numbers for these "unfun" games and compare them to most of those " fun" games to find that Nintendo makes allot more money off of the core gamers who enjoy those types of games then they do with most casual gamers.
As for Heavenly Sword, I have no comments because I have not played the game.
I have a number of friends who own the system and while it was massively popular for a while no one touches their systems any more (meanwhile their PC's and 360's get plenty of use). I've heard of this happening for quite a few people outside my social circle as well.
Seriously? People are still into this fad system?
Don't get me wrong, there were few people who were stronger supporters of the Wii when it was first coming out with it's new motion control setup. Unfortunately, it seems like all that developers have been able to do with it is create a bunch of crappy mini games where the only point seems to be to flail ones limbs around. The only thing the system does well is shooters (given that every other system has given up on the light gun) while they have been unable to come up with anything compelling in terms of sequels for their major franchises. Shoot, they even managed to release sequels to major franchises (I am thinking of Paper Mario and Mario Kart specifically here but I am sure there are others) that were significantly worse than their Gamecube counter parts.
Yeah, because us Democrats hate programs essential to our national security. I know the second I read this (being a Democrat myself) I said "National security is stupid. Protecting vital communication tools is stupid. We should spend all of this money on art!"
Wait, I didn't think any of that. I thought that this was a vital program and that you're an idiot who can't spell Democrat properly and makes retarded assumptions.
Agreed. I'm a bit of a liberal and still loath the idea of bailing out people with no fiscal restraint and likewise believe that these types of programs are essential to our national security.
Is it just me that has no taste in movies or is it the bulk of the series' core fan base (who don't like them as well) and all of the critics who gave the new trilogy bad reviews? How about the few reviewers how gave a movie or several of the movies descent scores but ones that were lower then the phenomenal reviews the original trilogy received? Where do they fall in all of this?
If people equate freedom of speech with bot having ones internet connection choked by monitoring software, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree.'"
Alright, I'm not sure what you mean by "best" in this instance. Do you mean best movie in an absolutely horrible follow up trilogy to a trilogy that was critically, highly successful and one that kept its core fan base happy throughout its series?
Otherwise, I have no frame of reference to understand what you are saying.
You know what, it's a shame that you didn't get modded troll for this crap. And that's exactly what it is, crap.
Wow, that's a strong start. I know myself and everyone else is taking you more seriously now, rather than less. Why don't we start calling each other names as well?
Of course maybe you are being ironic in calling me a troll in such a fashion and this all just went right over my head.
First you start off basically stating that you know his motivation behind something when clearly you don't.
Isn't that what you are doing in proclaiming his honest intentions?
Secondly, most people would use the word projector for the unit because that's what it is.
That's the accepted term for it and there are thousands of references made to that exact term in relation to a planetarium by doing a simple Google search. This isn't a made up term.
I wish I had an example on hand for this but I don't (and this is not important enough for me to spend a bunch of time digging for an example) but have you ever seen those surveys in which a group is asked a question given minimal info and most people in it give a negative response? Then a similar group is asked the same question but with greater depth and they generally answer in a positive manner. The term "welfare" is a good example of this where many people have a negative impression in regards to it but then turn around and express their support of a wide variety of welfare programs.
The point I am making with my ramblings is that I think most people have an impression of a projector as a cheap device, even when mentioned in conjunction with a planetarium and by mentioning a large price tag without saying a bit about why it has such a large price tag, it seems to me he's begging for a knee-jerk negative reaction from the crowd.
If anything your line about Republicans hating intellectuals is a vastly more bogus statement than McCain calling it a projector.
The latest fad for Republicans right now seems to be to label Democrats as elitist and out of touch with regular Americans and that the real, honest American is McCain's Joe Six-Pack. Do you really think the archetype, Joe Six-Pack, is intellectually inclined in any way? Furthermore, there is a constant push by many conservatives in this country to get creationism taught in science classes and to have the class curriculum cast strong doubt on evolutionary theory. Really I could go on and on with little examples like this that all seem to ad up.
If you really held any value in what you said you'd be honest and admit that it's YOU who are wrong.
Huh? Are you saying I'm wrong because I disagree with you? I'm not following.
On this point I guess I ran away with a misunderstanding on my part (so my bad on this) although I would disagree with the "vast majority" comment. I am actually currently working at a grocery store finishing off what's left of my degree and I see the same thing you describe with people abusing their food cards buying shrimp platters and deli sandwiches. I have not seen anything to suggest, however, that these people represent the "vast majority" of welfare recipients.
I didn't go to the planetarium as a child. I had a night sky to look at. My interest in astronomy wasn't fostered by people throwing money at me telling me to find a place in life. I did that on my own. If a kid can't look up at the night sky and see the wonder in it all the planetarium isn't going to make a damn bit of difference and you know
"He did mention that it was for a planetarium the time I seen him mention it. If you can't put 2 and 2 together to get what he was talking about it probably didn't matter what he called it."
I disagree. He chose the wording projector specifically because it implies a cheap device and therefore enforces the idea that this is wasteful spending. Plus, by questioning an institution devoted to intellectual pursuits he gets to attack those darn intellectuals modern Republicans seem to hate so much.
"Secondly, for all the bitching and moaning I see going on around here about space exploration being a drain funds for fattening up the poor, I find it odd that most slashdotters don't see they value in buying a couple thousand PCs and copies of Starry Night Backyard for each one of them for 3 million."
You seem to be implying that spending money making sure American's aren't living in absolute poverty (thus reducing the chances that their children become criminals) is more important than a space station that could easily be replaced by cheap unmanned satellites and a major push by NASA to go back to the moon to address our insecurities in regards to China's proposed landing there decades after we have. Is that correct or am I missing something?
"I think the planetarium, just like the public library, is becoming more and more outmoded by the home PC."
Have you ever seen a young child at a planetarium? Especially an academically inclined one? I can think of few better ways of addressing the United State's lack luster performance in turning out scientists and engineers than to expose children to stuff like this. We are a long ways off in home PC technology in instilling the awe of the universe that a planetarium can provide.
and by period you mean "for a piece of crap series that was critically speaking a bomb and was reviled by the majority of the series' core fan base", right? Otherwise I have no idea what you could possibly be getting at.
While I consider the European colonial movement of the 15th through 20th centuries to be a bad thing in a general sense and the source of many of the problems we see today in the third world, in some ways stuff like this makes me wish they had held onto the world a bit longer to help further purge these regions of their backward ways much like how the Brits outlawed the practice in India of forcing women to dive on their dead husbands funeral pyres (there's a specific name for this in India but I forget what it is). While I am sure there are a few backward regions of India where this still happens occasionally the practice today has been all but eliminated.
While I certainly don't see the West as the end all of morals and we could certainly stand to improve in many ways I am fully comfortable in taking the moral high ground in this situation and stating that this event is just plain wrong. Part of me really wants to force these people, at gun point if need be, to change their ways. Of course doing this opens up many more cans of worms but I can't help but get frustrated by things like this.
I've tried a few different major MMO's (including WOW) through lent copies from friends, running characters through to fairly high levels and based on my own experiences there is a huge difference in quality and immersiveness between the story telling in single player RPGs and MMOs. In addition, getting involved with MMO "lore" always seemed tedious and boring to me while I've rarely shied away from it in a single player experience.
Not exactly, given that they arrived at the logical conclusion to a "too much story" problem which is to just make what will basically be expansions if I had to guess. As for shelling out more money for three different releases, we'll have to wait and see if it's worth it just like any other game.
Yeah but MMO players play their one or two games for years. Those of us who loath the genre and have no desire to pay monthly fees for a game we've already payed for generally play through our games in months or even weeks. While MMO players happily run about in Eve online those of us who don't play those types of games have to wait longer and longer periods of time for new games as more and more developers jump on the MMO bandwagon to milk those monthly payments. Shoot, we'd probably be patiently waiting for Starcraft 3 or 4 if it weren't for WOW.
I think it's probably more like they think they can make more money making people pay monthly payments.
I dunno, I think killing him or her would be a better use of your time and would ultimately be what's best for society.
I'll let you know in a year or more when the game is actually made.
I hope this doesn't put off another Knight of the Old Republic game. I have no desire to pay a monthly fee to play in the Star Wars universe but on the other hand I loved the two KOTOR games that were made. ...and seriously, do we really need another MMO out there? I hope they at least do something original with this.