The important part is that he was raised over in Australia, and he developed his early way of speaking over there, which explains the tinges of an australian accent up through his early american films (Leathel Weapon, for instance). As for his ultra-Christian-bordering-on-bigotry ideals, both Australia and the US have that in spades, but probably moreso in the US.
Since Australian is probably the closest to American besides Canadian and Welsh (Welsh people have an uncanny knack for being able to sound like Americans when they want to), it hasn't taken him very long to completely fall into a completely American way of speaking, even when he's just doing an interview.
But the important part was that even though it wasn't convincing as a real scottish accent, it was FUN! Everybody loved DoHann's fake scottish accent. Scotty, himself, was a characature, he wasn't meant to be serious and realistic. The blatent earth cultural stereotypes, like Scotty and Chekov, made the alien cultural stereotypes seem more realistic in comparison.
I LOVED Pegg in Shaun and Hot Fuzz, Hot Fuzz was one of the few movies I've bought, and probably movie of the year for me. It's a bit different role, but I think he'll do fine. Just because he's not scottish doesn't mean shit. Neither was Mel Gibson, and he did it pretty convincingly (at least to an american like me who doesn't know any better). Both Pegg and Euin would have had about equal work in getting Scotty's fake accent down correctly.
A really good actor (which I'm now convinced Pegg can be considered), should be able to pull off something like that, no matter if they're originally Swedish or Polish.
The game I really want to see, though, that I think would be a creative and fun waste of time, would be a game staring both Mario and Sonic, but they have to play each other's levels: Mario trying to run through loop-the-loops, and Sonic becoming big by eating mushrooms, crazy shit like that. I can just picture Mario attempting a loop and falling on his ass, the idea leaves itself open for some pretty comedic ideas.
But yes, we've all beaten it, I beat it a week after it came out... and it's not quite good enough to start again right after beating it, like the original Metroid Prime was. It was far better than MP2, but it's going to be difficult for Nintendo or Retro to ever top MP1.
I think there's NO question here, in the final scene of the Sonic video that was released yesterday, Sonic turns into Super Sonic. The only gameplay reason for this occuring in Brawl is a final Smash. All the special movies have been announced too. No, they haven't OFFICIALLY announced it, but there's no other explanation.
Of which it's not, because Nintendo owns all the rights in question here.
It's because that Pokemon Trainer is based off of the Pokemon games, not the cartoon. None of the games call the main character Ash, that was an invention of the group who did the anime/manga. Having never watched any of the anime, and having seen a few of the games, the name Ash means nothing to me, Pokemon Trainer does.
Remember, Nintendo said that no characters from animes will be introduced in Brawl. Ash is an anime character that's never been in a game.
I agree, I don't think this has anything to do with completion. People like to use the excuse, "but this will give them time to polish", but that's just a happy excuse. The real reason is because of marketing. The game's been finished now for a few months, which is my guess (and seems to be the case from the reports I'm hearing), the push back is likely purely for marketting reasons.
So, before you start making this into a possitive thing about improving quality, let's be relistic here, the game's being pushed back for reasons other than the ones that will make you happy. Just deal with it, and move on.
Well, the problem is that "Brawler" is already a genre that is nothing like SSB. Brawlers are like Double Dragon, Bad Dudes, and more recently, God Hand. They're basically games that use fighting game style gameplay, while they progress through platformer/shooter-like levels. The adventure mode in SSB is basically that, but the rest of the game is not.
I hear this arguement a lot, and I disagree. Hardly anything in Smash is random to the extent that it becomes simply a game of chance. The items are random, yes, but you still have to use them properly, and there are ALWAYS ways of negating the use of them, but it just requires skill to do so. Smash is just as much about talent as any other game, once you become advanced enough, noone at a lower level can ever defeat you, no matter how lucky they are. This arguement is usually made by people who aren't advanced enough to know better, and it really pisses me off. Soul Calliber and Takken are no more about skill than Smash is. In fact, in my experience Soul Calliber proved to be completely random. I can't play fighting games in the slightest, but a bunch of guys who did, brought down Soul Calliber, and I beat the shit out of them, without knowing what I was doing. That could never happen in Smash.
Having not played StarCraft II yet, I don't know, but yes, Doom 2 is pretty much like that. The reason why I highlighted the Metroid series is because it has both a true remake and a true sequel, both of which are about equally removed from the original.
You missed my point, I do not pretend that Super Metroid is a remake in the "timeline" sense, but that it's set up in such a way that it revisits approximately the same content as the original. To put it bluntly: the plot is simply an "excuse" to revisit the content of the original, while still being technically a sequel.
When you play through the original, Zero Mission, and Super Metroid, if you hadn't been specifically told, either through the one sentance cutscenes at the begining, or by someone else, you could think that they're all sequels or all remakes, but the distinction between Zero Mission and the original, isn't fundimentally any different from the distinction between Super Metroid and the original, from the player's standpoint.
All I'm saying is that the distinction between remake and sequel, in this case, is purely superficial.
Many would, though. Super Mario All Stars was pretty early into the SNESs lifecycle (ie: not ALL that long after Mario 1-3 were still alive and well), and it sold like hotcakes. Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that many others won't.
Mario 64 was a bad example, as it's probably the first Mario game to actually have a fairly substantial adventure element to it, it's a totally different animal from Mario World. But Mario 3, Mario World, and Mario Land 2 are all pretty similar, in many ways, to the point of calling them re-invisionings of themselves. Even more so are the "level set" games like Mario 1 -> Lost Levels, or Megaman 1 -> 6 (and I would also include the first few X games in there as well, since they're basically the same gameplay/2-sentance story). Many franchises rebooted on their third outting and basically used the original concepts of the first as a jumping-off point:
Mario 1 / Mario 3 Metroid / Super Metroid Zelda / Link to the Past Final Fantasy I / Final Fantasy IIIj
Metroid -> Super Metroid = Sequel Metroid -> Metroid: Zero Mission = Remake
I'm sorry, but Super Metroid may as well be a retelling of the original Metroid, no less than Zero Mission was. Sure, they made some excuses for the same exact plot happening over again, but it was basically a retelling. Zero Mission was, once again, the same plot, and completely redesigned gameplay (and areas) from the ground up. The only difference is that ZM CLAIMED to be a retelling, where-as Super Metroid claimed to come afterwards, but that differences is mearly superficial, especially since plot is was not exactly a primary goal in the Metroid series until Prime.
I'm just pointing this out because I think it illustrates how superficial the arguement about sequals/remakes is in the game world. Especially in the 8-bit era, and into the 16-bit generation, as well, most sequels consisted of little more than the same game with a different level set, and maybe a new sentance added to the 3-sentance plotline.
Humans aren't usually comfortable with altering a timeline once it's been set, but we also like the security of building off of something we already know, which is why many game sequels are basically the same game, but explained that they're part of a series of repeating events.
Calling Mario Bros 3 a remake of Mario 1 may be a stretch, as the gameplay changed so drastically... but then, so did Zero Mission's. Where do you draw the line, and is there really a solid line to be drawn?
How fast is the internet? Seriously, it took me 5 minutes to download Paper Mario over DSL... that's, what, 50MB? Do I really want to start downloading 4GB titles? Not a chance. Music is exceptable with download, movies are GETTING THERE (if only because they can be highly compressed), video games, whose content is already highly compressed to begin with, aren't going to be exceptable for download for a long time, unless you're talking all-night downloads. I don't know if games ever will, frankly. Movies and Music don't grow in data over time. Games are growing as fast if not faster than internet download speeds are increasing.
It's fine for handheld and retro games, but worth it for full fledged games. I'm trying to imagine a downloadable Bioshock, and my head just exploded.
Technically, true, but it only markets one. It puts server out there but only those really in the KNOW know about it, and those are the only kind of consumer's their interested in selling it too anyway. I didn't even really think of it until you said anything, and I follow Apple's OSs on a weekly basis. The result is that even if they do have two, from a marketing standpoint, they only have one. Unlike XP, Vista, and the PS3, in which the marketplace shelves are a mess with all different versions.
No, Nintendo and Apple are the same company... have been for years. I'm just wondering why Steve Jobs doesn't where turtlenecks when he walks on stage as Miyammoto.
Neither is anywhere near watching a guy get pummelled on screen while swinging your own fist repeatedly to dictate the manner of the pummelling. All are equally fictional, but that last one... it feels good, in a very bad way indeed.
Wasn't Manhunt going to come out for Wii? In which case, it likely WOULD be swinging your own fist repeatedly to dictate the manner of pummelling.
Heh, well, you're right on one account, there are FAR worse problems, and in the grand scheme, this amounts to little or nothing. But blatent violence as shock value is just another form of social control, as it triggers our deeply seeded animal-like fascination with death and dominance, basically it attempts to undo everything that civilization stands for. Sure, one game isn't going to singlehandedly cause the distruction of the human race as we know it, but shouldn't we actively be trying to reject forms of entertainment that attempt to use our negative attributes in order to sell us things?
The fact is, this is all about making money, if you think it's about free-speech or some kind of altruism, then you're deluding yourselves. Rockstar is a company, just like any other, but they're using shock value in order to make a profit. That, in itself, to me, is reason enough not to buy it. To ban it? Maybe not, but to do everything possible to inform people that they shouldn't give in to Rockstar's trap, I'm all for.
Yeah, well, I'll admit my ignorance of the inner-workings of the British information control scheme, but the outcome is identical to the US, which is completely privitized, so it's not really all that important, is it?
When will people understand that power is power, regardless of whether it's in the private sector or the public sector, and too much power in one area leads to a few people with iron fists. Pure Capitalism deligates too much power to the private sector, and pure Socialism deligates too much power to the public sector. And yes, I do consider the "private sector" to be on consolidated power, for companies tend to work together for their own ends just as much as they tend to compete, JUST LIKE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
Probably the most objective and pragmatic statement I've heard all day, thank you. You've highlighted the problem completely, freeing the blame from one particular group. Now it's up to "US" to decide what we can and should do about it, if at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The important part is that he was raised over in Australia, and he developed his early way of speaking over there, which explains the tinges of an australian accent up through his early american films (Leathel Weapon, for instance). As for his ultra-Christian-bordering-on-bigotry ideals, both Australia and the US have that in spades, but probably moreso in the US.
Since Australian is probably the closest to American besides Canadian and Welsh (Welsh people have an uncanny knack for being able to sound like Americans when they want to), it hasn't taken him very long to completely fall into a completely American way of speaking, even when he's just doing an interview.
Sure it was, it was Scotty's...
It just wasn't DoHan's, or scottish.
But the important part was that even though it wasn't convincing as a real scottish accent, it was FUN! Everybody loved DoHann's fake scottish accent. Scotty, himself, was a characature, he wasn't meant to be serious and realistic. The blatent earth cultural stereotypes, like Scotty and Chekov, made the alien cultural stereotypes seem more realistic in comparison.
I LOVED Pegg in Shaun and Hot Fuzz, Hot Fuzz was one of the few movies I've bought, and probably movie of the year for me. It's a bit different role, but I think he'll do fine. Just because he's not scottish doesn't mean shit. Neither was Mel Gibson, and he did it pretty convincingly (at least to an american like me who doesn't know any better). Both Pegg and Euin would have had about equal work in getting Scotty's fake accent down correctly.
A really good actor (which I'm now convinced Pegg can be considered), should be able to pull off something like that, no matter if they're originally Swedish or Polish.
Lol.
The game I really want to see, though, that I think would be a creative and fun waste of time, would be a game staring both Mario and Sonic, but they have to play each other's levels: Mario trying to run through loop-the-loops, and Sonic becoming big by eating mushrooms, crazy shit like that. I can just picture Mario attempting a loop and falling on his ass, the idea leaves itself open for some pretty comedic ideas.
But yes, we've all beaten it, I beat it a week after it came out... and it's not quite good enough to start again right after beating it, like the original Metroid Prime was. It was far better than MP2, but it's going to be difficult for Nintendo or Retro to ever top MP1.
I think there's NO question here, in the final scene of the Sonic video that was released yesterday, Sonic turns into Super Sonic. The only gameplay reason for this occuring in Brawl is a final Smash. All the special movies have been announced too. No, they haven't OFFICIALLY announced it, but there's no other explanation.
Of which it's not, because Nintendo owns all the rights in question here.
It's because that Pokemon Trainer is based off of the Pokemon games, not the cartoon. None of the games call the main character Ash, that was an invention of the group who did the anime/manga. Having never watched any of the anime, and having seen a few of the games, the name Ash means nothing to me, Pokemon Trainer does.
Remember, Nintendo said that no characters from animes will be introduced in Brawl. Ash is an anime character that's never been in a game.
I agree, I don't think this has anything to do with completion. People like to use the excuse, "but this will give them time to polish", but that's just a happy excuse. The real reason is because of marketing. The game's been finished now for a few months, which is my guess (and seems to be the case from the reports I'm hearing), the push back is likely purely for marketting reasons.
So, before you start making this into a possitive thing about improving quality, let's be relistic here, the game's being pushed back for reasons other than the ones that will make you happy. Just deal with it, and move on.
Well, the problem is that "Brawler" is already a genre that is nothing like SSB. Brawlers are like Double Dragon, Bad Dudes, and more recently, God Hand. They're basically games that use fighting game style gameplay, while they progress through platformer/shooter-like levels. The adventure mode in SSB is basically that, but the rest of the game is not.
I hear this arguement a lot, and I disagree. Hardly anything in Smash is random to the extent that it becomes simply a game of chance. The items are random, yes, but you still have to use them properly, and there are ALWAYS ways of negating the use of them, but it just requires skill to do so. Smash is just as much about talent as any other game, once you become advanced enough, noone at a lower level can ever defeat you, no matter how lucky they are. This arguement is usually made by people who aren't advanced enough to know better, and it really pisses me off. Soul Calliber and Takken are no more about skill than Smash is. In fact, in my experience Soul Calliber proved to be completely random. I can't play fighting games in the slightest, but a bunch of guys who did, brought down Soul Calliber, and I beat the shit out of them, without knowing what I was doing. That could never happen in Smash.
Having not played StarCraft II yet, I don't know, but yes, Doom 2 is pretty much like that. The reason why I highlighted the Metroid series is because it has both a true remake and a true sequel, both of which are about equally removed from the original.
Wait... you mean it will soon create it's best game? ala Battlefield 2142?
You missed my point, I do not pretend that Super Metroid is a remake in the "timeline" sense, but that it's set up in such a way that it revisits approximately the same content as the original. To put it bluntly: the plot is simply an "excuse" to revisit the content of the original, while still being technically a sequel.
When you play through the original, Zero Mission, and Super Metroid, if you hadn't been specifically told, either through the one sentance cutscenes at the begining, or by someone else, you could think that they're all sequels or all remakes, but the distinction between Zero Mission and the original, isn't fundimentally any different from the distinction between Super Metroid and the original, from the player's standpoint.
All I'm saying is that the distinction between remake and sequel, in this case, is purely superficial.
Many would, though. Super Mario All Stars was pretty early into the SNESs lifecycle (ie: not ALL that long after Mario 1-3 were still alive and well), and it sold like hotcakes. Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that many others won't.
Mario 64 was a bad example, as it's probably the first Mario game to actually have a fairly substantial adventure element to it, it's a totally different animal from Mario World. But Mario 3, Mario World, and Mario Land 2 are all pretty similar, in many ways, to the point of calling them re-invisionings of themselves. Even more so are the "level set" games like Mario 1 -> Lost Levels, or Megaman 1 -> 6 (and I would also include the first few X games in there as well, since they're basically the same gameplay/2-sentance story). Many franchises rebooted on their third outting and basically used the original concepts of the first as a jumping-off point:
Mario 1 / Mario 3
Metroid / Super Metroid
Zelda / Link to the Past
Final Fantasy I / Final Fantasy IIIj
But here's where it get's weird:
Metroid -> Super Metroid = Sequel
Metroid -> Metroid: Zero Mission = Remake
I'm sorry, but Super Metroid may as well be a retelling of the original Metroid, no less than Zero Mission was. Sure, they made some excuses for the same exact plot happening over again, but it was basically a retelling. Zero Mission was, once again, the same plot, and completely redesigned gameplay (and areas) from the ground up. The only difference is that ZM CLAIMED to be a retelling, where-as Super Metroid claimed to come afterwards, but that differences is mearly superficial, especially since plot is was not exactly a primary goal in the Metroid series until Prime.
I'm just pointing this out because I think it illustrates how superficial the arguement about sequals/remakes is in the game world. Especially in the 8-bit era, and into the 16-bit generation, as well, most sequels consisted of little more than the same game with a different level set, and maybe a new sentance added to the 3-sentance plotline.
Humans aren't usually comfortable with altering a timeline once it's been set, but we also like the security of building off of something we already know, which is why many game sequels are basically the same game, but explained that they're part of a series of repeating events.
Calling Mario Bros 3 a remake of Mario 1 may be a stretch, as the gameplay changed so drastically... but then, so did Zero Mission's. Where do you draw the line, and is there really a solid line to be drawn?
How fast is the internet? Seriously, it took me 5 minutes to download Paper Mario over DSL... that's, what, 50MB? Do I really want to start downloading 4GB titles? Not a chance. Music is exceptable with download, movies are GETTING THERE (if only because they can be highly compressed), video games, whose content is already highly compressed to begin with, aren't going to be exceptable for download for a long time, unless you're talking all-night downloads. I don't know if games ever will, frankly. Movies and Music don't grow in data over time. Games are growing as fast if not faster than internet download speeds are increasing.
It's fine for handheld and retro games, but worth it for full fledged games. I'm trying to imagine a downloadable Bioshock, and my head just exploded.
I think a few Catholic priests read our synopsis and just decided to start their own Halo nights.
Technically, true, but it only markets one. It puts server out there but only those really in the KNOW know about it, and those are the only kind of consumer's their interested in selling it too anyway. I didn't even really think of it until you said anything, and I follow Apple's OSs on a weekly basis. The result is that even if they do have two, from a marketing standpoint, they only have one. Unlike XP, Vista, and the PS3, in which the marketplace shelves are a mess with all different versions.
No, Nintendo and Apple are the same company... have been for years. I'm just wondering why Steve Jobs doesn't where turtlenecks when he walks on stage as Miyammoto.
Heh, well, you're right on one account, there are FAR worse problems, and in the grand scheme, this amounts to little or nothing. But blatent violence as shock value is just another form of social control, as it triggers our deeply seeded animal-like fascination with death and dominance, basically it attempts to undo everything that civilization stands for. Sure, one game isn't going to singlehandedly cause the distruction of the human race as we know it, but shouldn't we actively be trying to reject forms of entertainment that attempt to use our negative attributes in order to sell us things?
The fact is, this is all about making money, if you think it's about free-speech or some kind of altruism, then you're deluding yourselves. Rockstar is a company, just like any other, but they're using shock value in order to make a profit. That, in itself, to me, is reason enough not to buy it. To ban it? Maybe not, but to do everything possible to inform people that they shouldn't give in to Rockstar's trap, I'm all for.
When you put it like that, I can't help but agree with you. Still, I think it's a flaming pile of dung and should never see the light of day.
Yeah, well, I'll admit my ignorance of the inner-workings of the British information control scheme, but the outcome is identical to the US, which is completely privitized, so it's not really all that important, is it?
When will people understand that power is power, regardless of whether it's in the private sector or the public sector, and too much power in one area leads to a few people with iron fists. Pure Capitalism deligates too much power to the private sector, and pure Socialism deligates too much power to the public sector. And yes, I do consider the "private sector" to be on consolidated power, for companies tend to work together for their own ends just as much as they tend to compete, JUST LIKE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
Probably the most objective and pragmatic statement I've heard all day, thank you. You've highlighted the problem completely, freeing the blame from one particular group. Now it's up to "US" to decide what we can and should do about it, if at all.