Somehow, I can't help but think this is an overreaction and even unfair.
I didn't enjoy the first Manhunt. This is partly due to the initial description a friend of mine gave. I was under the impression it was a far more open game than it was. The gameplay simply wasn't fun for me, snuff genre aside.
However, I wouldn't for a moment consider banning the game. Violent, yes. Gruesome, yes. Morally dubious, yes. However, so are lots and lots of movies, books, and the news. There are plenty of movies I've seen in theatres at an R rating I'd consider far more disturbing and vicious than Manhunt.
Unless there's concrete proof that Manhunt 2 causes cancer, murder, or the death of many kittens at the hand of God I don't believe it should be banned. Restricted from the reach of minors? Definately. But not outright banned.
Thesesites have a lot of good information on why E.T. was considered bad.
Objectively, the biggest problem with E.T. was its tedious and confusing gameplay. The graphics weren't bad by the standards of the day, but then again neither were Defender's or Pac Man's (unless you were comparing them to the arcades).
They specifically drew from otherwise well reputed and even legendary developers. It's no shocker when some random, never-before heard of developer makes a game that tanks. There's no surprise when some lesser known, hit or miss team screws up. When a legend like Shigeru Miyamoto creates a tanker there's a moment of disbelief.
In my opinion, this was one of the best "top x worst y" lists in a long time. They actually did some work and found games from companies and people whose typical quality breaks the bounds of the perfect score.
Bah, I missed the preview key accidentally. Serves me right.
Here's the fixed version.
How can you possibly separate discussion of the console from the discussion of its games? A console without games is nothing more than a paperweight.
A console without controllers is nothing more than a paperweight.
That sentence can be reworked for everything from players, to TVs, to Pluto. It is true that a console requires good games, but it is also true that control and design are also important.
The PS3 has several more high-rated games than the Wii does, not to mention better third-party support. Not that that's relevant, since we're talking about the performance of the Wii in general in this case, not just in relation to the PS3.
It'll summarize my response to the reviews because otherwise I could write a dissertation. The games industry has, for some but not all time, been a single demographic. The games were written by that demographic, played by the demographic, and reviewed by that demographic. The industry slowly chopped away people who did not exactly fit into this demographic. Given that many Wii titles are not aimed at this demographic, can we expect them to be reviewed favorably?
That doesn't mean the Wii is some paragon of awesome, but it should give one pause when considering how we weight various measurements of success for games.
If the games for it are lackluster, then how has it demonstrated its potential?
The issue isn't that all games for either the PS3 or Wii are lackluster, but that most of them are. As such, it is possible that the Wii's potential has been demonstrated by one of the titles that isn't lackluster.
I understand exactly what he said; that there's nothing about the Wii that makes it inherently "more fun" than the PS3. You might have more fun with it if you like party games with gratuitous waggle to the exclusion of everything else, but there are a lot of people who don't.
Because of course, increased processing power and media capacity can only be used to improve graphics.
You're missing his point. The point is that regardless of how fun or not fun the Wii is, and regardless of whether or not the PS3's assets allow it to be fun or more fun than the Wii, Stringer gave nothing in the quoted material about how fun the Wii was. There was nothing good or bad about it, nothing supporting previous statements. This point isn't about his or your opinions on the subject, but Stringer's.
Because it's not an issue. There's still been nothing on the Wii that's justified the hype over the Wiimote. Not to mention the damage that the different control scheme does to third-party support. Hell, there's even the fact that the Sixaxis has had some decent games designed for it, such as flOw and Super Rub-a-Dub, without compromising playability for games with traditional controls.
Because the Wii has the same problem.
It is an issue, because it's the very basis of Nintedo's console. In fact it's the very basis of all video games, player input. The wars over whether PCs or consoles are better for FPSs attest to this.
If Stringer thinks that the Wii hasn't had any games that justify the unique controls he could have said as much. If he thought that the SIXAXIS was matching up to it because of fl0w and other games he could have mentioned it. If he felt that both consoles were struggling to get good titles out, he could have voiced his thoughts and how his company was going to do a better job of breaking the stagnation thannNintendo. The issue that the GP is highlighting is that Stringer was asked a very straightforward question and didn't give an answer at all relevant to it. Our opinions of the Wii and PS3 aside, it seems strange that Stringer didn't comment.
How can you possibly separate discussion of the console from the discussion of its games? A console without games is nothing more than a paperweight.
A console without controllers is nothing more than a paperweight.
That sentence can be reworked for everything from players, to TVs, to Pluto. It is true that a console requires good games, but it is also true that control and design are also important.
The PS3 has several more high-rated games than the Wii does, not to mention better third-party support. Not that that's relevant, since we're talking about the performance of the Wii in general in this case, not just in relation to the PS3.
It'll summarize my response to the reviews because otherwise I could write a dissertation. The games industry has, for some but not all time, been a single demographic. The games were written by that demographic, played by the demographic, and reviewed by that demographic. The industry slowly chopped away people who did not exactly fit into this demographic. Given that many Wii titles are not aimed at this demographic, can we expect them to be reviewed favorably?
That doesn't mean the Wii is some paragon of awesome, but it should give one pause when considering how we weight various measurements of success for games.
If the games for it are lackluster, then how has it demonstrated its potential?
The issue isn't that all games for either the PS3 or Wii are lackluster, but that most of them are. As such, it is possible that the Wii's potential has been demonstrated by one of the titles that isn't lackluster.
I understand exactly what he said; that there's nothing about the Wii that makes it inherently "more fun" than the PS3. You might have more fun with it if you like party games with gratuitous waggle to the exclusion of everything else, but there are a lot of people who don't.
Because of course, increased processing power and media capacity can only be used to improve graphics.
You're missing his point. The point is that regardless of how fun or not fun the Wii is, and regardless of whether or not the PS3's assets allow it to be fun or more fun than the Wii, Stringer gave nothing in the quoted material about how fun the Wii was. There was nothing good or bad about it, nothing supporting previous statements. This point isn't about his or your opinions on the subject, but Stringer's.
Because it's not an issue. There's still been nothing on the Wii that's justified the hype over the Wiimote. Not to mention the damage that the different control scheme does to third-party support. Hell, there's even the fact that the Sixaxis has had some decent games designed for it, such as flOw and Super Rub-a-Dub, without compromising playability for games with traditional controls.
Because the Wii has the same problem.
It is an issue, because it's the very basis of Nintedo's console. In fact it's the very basis of all video games, player input. The wars over whether PCs or consoles are better for FPSs attest to this.
If Stringer thinks that the Wii hasn't had any games that justify the unique controls he could have said as much. If he thought that the SIXAXIS was matching up to it because of fl0w and other games he could have mentioned it. If he felt that both consoles were struggling to get good titles out, he could have voiced his thoughts and how his company was going to do a better job of breaking the stagnation thannNintendo. The issue that the GP is highlighting is that Stringer was asked a very straightforward question and didn't give an answer at all relevant to it. Our opinions of the Wii and PS3 aside, it seems strange that Stringer didn't comment.
Whether unable (due to PR restrictions) or unwilling (for whatever reason), he completely avoided the question. That's the fundamental issue here.
Except that bots are A) about 20 times more obvious and B) about 20 times less efficient.
Because everyone is, to an extent, doing the grind it can be potentially hard to tell a regular player from chinese gold farmer. Barring a strange name (not always a guarantee), a "ni hao", or a 24/7 presence in a particular spot for weeks on end a farmer is indistinguishable from someone else who just needs to grind.
They can also, as much as it can be applied to WoW, be highly skilled. Unlike a bot, they can easily figure out the most efficient methods of play given shifting circumstances. A bot is not going to be able to stand up against a real player ganking them barring a huge discrepancy in gear (and perhaps a complete moron of a player). A bot is not able to adapt to other players fighting in the same territory. A bot is also unable to respond well to a GM.
To reiterate: Bots produce less gold per hour, are highly susceptible to reduced production in changing circumstances, and are much more likely to get your accounts banned. The only benefit gained is not paying the pitiable wages of your workers, which are tied to how much gold they produce anyway. Bots simply aren't a good option.
I am not a sweatshop owner, but in a Nike shoe shop you're at best completing one portion of a shoe. You are not making an entire shoe, or even a large part of the shoe. You are step 12 of 56, which doesn't necessarily require skilled labor. Some steps might require sowing, but even then most of the work is likely done by a machine no worker can afford.
The end result is that the workers in said factory are probably in a more hazardous environment while gaining exactly as much applicable knowledge as the gold farmers.
...The Super Smash Bros: Brawl website is a blog of sorts.
It's not a blog in the sense of "This is the random thoughts of Brawl's director uncensored by Nintendo", but it has a modified blog format.
In any case, the most important part of communication between a company and its customers isn't the medium, it's the message. I don't mean the literal meaning of the message, but every aspect of that message. Is it respectful? Does it make sense? Is it what the customer wants? I could care less if Sony uses blogs or direct2mind messaging systems. If their message is "chickens eat potatoes" the medium isn't going to matter.
1) Is it illegal to borrow a legally published version of copyrighted material? 2) Is it illegal to copy borrowed material? 2b) If 2 is true, who is at fault when material is copied, the copier or the lender?
Given libraries are legal, 1 is a definite "no". 2, I think, is most likely illegal. The key question here is 2b.
I can't see any viable way the vendor/lender can be held responsible for items sold/lent being used illegally. With the possible exception of regulated/dangerous items such as guns or other weapons, it's not criminal for a store to sell someone a hammer without making them sign a statement claiming they won't use it for illegal purposes. It's not the store's fault some nut bought pencils and started killing people with them.
Similarly, if it is legal to "borrow" music but not copy it is not the student's fault the files were copied. The other users could simply have listened to the music files from the shared folder without copying them, and thus "borrowed" them. That they weren't content to simply "borrow" the music isn't the fault of the student who opened his music collection to the public.
Printing in smaller sizes is bound to be a sign of quality rather than the lack thereof. Especially if grayscale, color, or (*gasp*) glossy paper are used.
Is that why the Where's Waldo books were shrunk? Because I'll take the larger ones over my bleeding eyes.
I've seen some interesting anonymous posts in my time, this one being the foremost amoung them.
Why would the people complaining that the "very poor graphics" of Halo 3 aren't good enough turn around and buy Wiis? The very nature of their criticism is specifically tuned to the eyecandy and pizzaz rather than any gameplay.
In fact, I'd think people who didn't care about graphics wouldn't be turned off by the "poor graphics" of Halo 3. They might be turned off by the price, the controls, or the Microsoft Logo, but not graphics.
I'm assuming, perhaps erroneously, that you're comparing Dallas vs Massachusetts population densities (3,544/sq mi vs 11,543/sq mi) and concluding that a higher population density allows for easier mass transit.
I'm not an expert, but it seems that we must also consider the greater metropoliton area within which each draws it's commuters. The Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington area is 9,249 sq. mi. with 6,003,967 (2006 est.) people, a density of 634/sq. mi. The Boston-Cambridge-Quincy area is 4,674 sq. mi. with 4,411,835 (2005 est.) people and a density of 947/sq. mi.
We must also realize that with Boston bordering the ocean, approximately 180 degrees of potential angles for commuters to enter the city are cut off. This theoretically forces double the expected traffic of a fully accessible city on the remaining directions.
The question boils down to what difference a 50% greater density and 25% smaller population afford. However, considering that the 6 million people in the Metroplex can come from any direction, we actually have a 50% greater population within the same potential arc. This should approximately outweigh the density benefit.
Given all of this, we should expect the two cities to have similar (though not equal) commutes (although we have failed to consider New England vs Texas roads) barring the effects of mass transit. However, the rush hours of both cities/metropolitan areas are vastly different. The "hour" in rush hour for Boston is quite literal, with traffic being noticably heavier but not slower immediately surrounding the peak hour in the morning and the peak hour in the afternoon. As soon as half an hour before or after the rush hour traffic is neither hectic nor rushed. However, the first signs of the rush hour (in the afternoon) in Dallas start as soon as 3-3:30, and last as late as 7-7:30.
What's ridiculous is the stark and remarkable difference. Despite being theoretically even, there is a vast gap between the commutes of both cities. Boston isn't perfect, or even necessarily good, but it's been almost shocking to drive under 75 and 365 each morning and see bumper to bumper traffic almost regardless of when I wake up.
Again, I'm not an expert. I didn't account for population distribution, or other factors a true expert might. However, from a general and rudimentary accessment I remain surprized at how poor the situation seems.
I'm wondering about how true this "move" is. You'd think with such high profile people being lost there'd be something, well, official?
I realize Game Informer is a major gaming magazine, but it still seems really odd. "Sources" or no, Harrison and Kaplan are pretty important in the hierarchy of NoA, and I find it really weird that Nintendo would silently move/remove all of these people without announcing anything at all.
Not to mention how little sense it makes to move marketing so far away from headquarters.
I'm sorry, did you use Dallas and "Mass Transit" in the same sentence?
The DART and the busses are "real" I guess, but are drops in the bucket. Their capacity for transporting people is no where near enough to alleviate the massive congestion.
I moved down here from Massachusetts a year ago, so maybe I'm spoiled by the T. However, it still amazes me that Rush Hour lasts from 3 until 7 here.
If I were attempting to make as unbiased an environment as possible for such a debate, as held at a games expo, keeping it secret would be the first idea coming to mind. Announcing months before hand is just asked people passionately for/against Thompson to buy up tickets and otherwise destroy the levelheadedness of the crowds. Waiting until the last minute is perfectly understandable.
While a flawed analogy, lets say that Windows users attempting to move to Mac are like people recovering from broken legs or a similar injury which impedes standard walking. You don't just throw a cast on them and tell them to walk out of the hospital, you give them a pair of crutches.
Eventually, they won't need crutches anymore and they're good to go. Until then, people used to Windows need all the help/reasons they can get to bother trying to walk through the Mac OS.
I'm one of those morons who ditched their old consoles with the advent of each new one. Now, Nintendo, Sega and the rest get to sell me nostalgia at top dollar.
I've purchased 4 NES games, 2 SNES, 2 Sega Genesis and 3 N64 games thus far. It's not an average, but assuming it is we divide 4.7 million by 11 and get 427,000ish people like me in the world.
9 races/factions with 3 separate and viable tech trees fighting in two or more drastically different types of battle.
Heck, that's oversimplifying it by a long shot.
Blizzard doesn't just have to account for every class, but every class spec. Not just every class spec, but every class spec/gear combination. Not just every class spec/gear combination, but every group dynamic possible. Not just every group dynamic possible, but every situation that group dynamic is going to face.
The only finite number in that horrific beast is the number of classes. I'm personally amazed that given the number of default tools and speccable options each class is granted there is any semblence of balance at all.
WoW is not perfect by any stretch, but it's also not some horrific monster of imbalance.
1) The very beginning: This has the advantage that you get to see the series evolve. To my knowledge, the lost episodes are largely 2nd and 3rd doctor. There's probably a list somewhere you can look it up.
The special effects are circa the era the show aired in. If you aren't fond of the age old effects, this might not be the start for you.
2) Third Doctor onward: The jump between the second and third doctors was large enough that one could viably start here without needing the previous backstory. By this point, the series had established most of its tenants.
3) Fourth Doctor onward: Not as good a spot as the others, but Tom Baker was the most popular doctor, had the longest run, and had a couple episodes written by Douglas Adams.
4) Ninth Doctor onward: Skip the old series entirely, go to the new series. You gain the benefit that you'll quickly be up to speed with other people starting here, but you'll probably feel inadaquate when some diehard who watched the series as it aired starts rambling about the other doctors.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow, I can't help but think this is an overreaction and even unfair.
I didn't enjoy the first Manhunt. This is partly due to the initial description a friend of mine gave. I was under the impression it was a far more open game than it was. The gameplay simply wasn't fun for me, snuff genre aside.
However, I wouldn't for a moment consider banning the game. Violent, yes. Gruesome, yes. Morally dubious, yes. However, so are lots and lots of movies, books, and the news. There are plenty of movies I've seen in theatres at an R rating I'd consider far more disturbing and vicious than Manhunt.
Unless there's concrete proof that Manhunt 2 causes cancer, murder, or the death of many kittens at the hand of God I don't believe it should be banned. Restricted from the reach of minors? Definately. But not outright banned.
These sites have a lot of good information on why E.T. was considered bad.
Objectively, the biggest problem with E.T. was its tedious and confusing gameplay. The graphics weren't bad by the standards of the day, but then again neither were Defender's or Pac Man's (unless you were comparing them to the arcades).
They specifically drew from otherwise well reputed and even legendary developers. It's no shocker when some random, never-before heard of developer makes a game that tanks. There's no surprise when some lesser known, hit or miss team screws up. When a legend like Shigeru Miyamoto creates a tanker there's a moment of disbelief.
In my opinion, this was one of the best "top x worst y" lists in a long time. They actually did some work and found games from companies and people whose typical quality breaks the bounds of the perfect score.
Here's the fixed version.
A console without controllers is nothing more than a paperweight.
That sentence can be reworked for everything from players, to TVs, to Pluto. It is true that a console requires good games, but it is also true that control and design are also important.
It'll summarize my response to the reviews because otherwise I could write a dissertation. The games industry has, for some but not all time, been a single demographic. The games were written by that demographic, played by the demographic, and reviewed by that demographic. The industry slowly chopped away people who did not exactly fit into this demographic. Given that many Wii titles are not aimed at this demographic, can we expect them to be reviewed favorably?
That doesn't mean the Wii is some paragon of awesome, but it should give one pause when considering how we weight various measurements of success for games.
The issue isn't that all games for either the PS3 or Wii are lackluster, but that most of them are. As such, it is possible that the Wii's potential has been demonstrated by one of the titles that isn't lackluster.
You're missing his point. The point is that regardless of how fun or not fun the Wii is, and regardless of whether or not the PS3's assets allow it to be fun or more fun than the Wii, Stringer gave nothing in the quoted material about how fun the Wii was. There was nothing good or bad about it, nothing supporting previous statements. This point isn't about his or your opinions on the subject, but Stringer's.
It is an issue, because it's the very basis of Nintedo's console. In fact it's the very basis of all video games, player input. The wars over whether PCs or consoles are better for FPSs attest to this.
If Stringer thinks that the Wii hasn't had any games that justify the unique controls he could have said as much. If he thought that the SIXAXIS was matching up to it because of fl0w and other games he could have mentioned it. If he felt that both consoles were struggling to get good titles out, he could have voiced his thoughts and how his company was going to do a better job of breaking the stagnation thannNintendo. The issue that the GP is highlighting is that Stringer was asked a very straightforward question and didn't give an answer at all relevant to it. Our opinions of the Wii and PS3 aside, it seems strange that Stringer didn't comment.
Whether unable (due to PR rest
A console without controllers is nothing more than a paperweight.
That sentence can be reworked for everything from players, to TVs, to Pluto. It is true that a console requires good games, but it is also true that control and design are also important.
It'll summarize my response to the reviews because otherwise I could write a dissertation. The games industry has, for some but not all time, been a single demographic. The games were written by that demographic, played by the demographic, and reviewed by that demographic. The industry slowly chopped away people who did not exactly fit into this demographic. Given that many Wii titles are not aimed at this demographic, can we expect them to be reviewed favorably?
That doesn't mean the Wii is some paragon of awesome, but it should give one pause when considering how we weight various measurements of success for games.
We're talking about the 360. You're talking about the original Xbox.
4 years ago is back that way.
Except that bots are A) about 20 times more obvious and B) about 20 times less efficient.
Because everyone is, to an extent, doing the grind it can be potentially hard to tell a regular player from chinese gold farmer. Barring a strange name (not always a guarantee), a "ni hao", or a 24/7 presence in a particular spot for weeks on end a farmer is indistinguishable from someone else who just needs to grind.
They can also, as much as it can be applied to WoW, be highly skilled. Unlike a bot, they can easily figure out the most efficient methods of play given shifting circumstances. A bot is not going to be able to stand up against a real player ganking them barring a huge discrepancy in gear (and perhaps a complete moron of a player). A bot is not able to adapt to other players fighting in the same territory. A bot is also unable to respond well to a GM.
To reiterate: Bots produce less gold per hour, are highly susceptible to reduced production in changing circumstances, and are much more likely to get your accounts banned. The only benefit gained is not paying the pitiable wages of your workers, which are tied to how much gold they produce anyway. Bots simply aren't a good option.
Check, not mate.
I am not a sweatshop owner, but in a Nike shoe shop you're at best completing one portion of a shoe. You are not making an entire shoe, or even a large part of the shoe. You are step 12 of 56, which doesn't necessarily require skilled labor. Some steps might require sowing, but even then most of the work is likely done by a machine no worker can afford.
The end result is that the workers in said factory are probably in a more hazardous environment while gaining exactly as much applicable knowledge as the gold farmers.
Personally, I prefer the 8-bit sounds. At least that way no one in my immediate vicinity on a plane or a train will realize I'm playing Pokemon.
That, and the anime voices are annoying.
I sincerely hope Sony doesn't believe Nintendo is beating them simply because of price.
I sincerely believe they aren't that silly, but these days you never can tell.
...The Super Smash Bros: Brawl website is a blog of sorts.
It's not a blog in the sense of "This is the random thoughts of Brawl's director uncensored by Nintendo", but it has a modified blog format.
In any case, the most important part of communication between a company and its customers isn't the medium, it's the message. I don't mean the literal meaning of the message, but every aspect of that message. Is it respectful? Does it make sense? Is it what the customer wants? I could care less if Sony uses blogs or direct2mind messaging systems. If their message is "chickens eat potatoes" the medium isn't going to matter.
It boils down to these questions:
1) Is it illegal to borrow a legally published version of copyrighted material?
2) Is it illegal to copy borrowed material?
2b) If 2 is true, who is at fault when material is copied, the copier or the lender?
Given libraries are legal, 1 is a definite "no". 2, I think, is most likely illegal. The key question here is 2b.
I can't see any viable way the vendor/lender can be held responsible for items sold/lent being used illegally. With the possible exception of regulated/dangerous items such as guns or other weapons, it's not criminal for a store to sell someone a hammer without making them sign a statement claiming they won't use it for illegal purposes. It's not the store's fault some nut bought pencils and started killing people with them.
Similarly, if it is legal to "borrow" music but not copy it is not the student's fault the files were copied. The other users could simply have listened to the music files from the shared folder without copying them, and thus "borrowed" them. That they weren't content to simply "borrow" the music isn't the fault of the student who opened his music collection to the public.
That's how I see it anyway.
Is that why the Where's Waldo books were shrunk? Because I'll take the larger ones over my bleeding eyes.
Some games I'm aware of with the potential to last > 16 hours.
Dead Rising - I spent a week with some buddies playing this game. We each clocked at least a full day of play each. That was a blast.
Armored Core 4 - Assuming you're twink happy and OCD, you could probably die playing this game.
DoA4 - I liked it, I played it a fair amount, it was good. This is despite the fact that generally I avoid this kind of fighting game.
Those are a few examples. I'm sure that depending on your tastes there will be more/less.
I've seen some interesting anonymous posts in my time, this one being the foremost amoung them.
Why would the people complaining that the "very poor graphics" of Halo 3 aren't good enough turn around and buy Wiis? The very nature of their criticism is specifically tuned to the eyecandy and pizzaz rather than any gameplay.
In fact, I'd think people who didn't care about graphics wouldn't be turned off by the "poor graphics" of Halo 3. They might be turned off by the price, the controls, or the Microsoft Logo, but not graphics.
I'm assuming, perhaps erroneously, that you're comparing Dallas vs Massachusetts population densities (3,544/sq mi vs 11,543/sq mi) and concluding that a higher population density allows for easier mass transit.
/sq. mi.
I'm not an expert, but it seems that we must also consider the greater metropoliton area within which each draws it's commuters. The Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington area is 9,249 sq. mi. with 6,003,967 (2006 est.) people, a density of 634/sq. mi. The Boston-Cambridge-Quincy area is 4,674 sq. mi. with 4,411,835 (2005 est.) people and a density of 947
We must also realize that with Boston bordering the ocean, approximately 180 degrees of potential angles for commuters to enter the city are cut off. This theoretically forces double the expected traffic of a fully accessible city on the remaining directions.
The question boils down to what difference a 50% greater density and 25% smaller population afford. However, considering that the 6 million people in the Metroplex can come from any direction, we actually have a 50% greater population within the same potential arc. This should approximately outweigh the density benefit.
Given all of this, we should expect the two cities to have similar (though not equal) commutes (although we have failed to consider New England vs Texas roads) barring the effects of mass transit. However, the rush hours of both cities/metropolitan areas are vastly different. The "hour" in rush hour for Boston is quite literal, with traffic being noticably heavier but not slower immediately surrounding the peak hour in the morning and the peak hour in the afternoon. As soon as half an hour before or after the rush hour traffic is neither hectic nor rushed. However, the first signs of the rush hour (in the afternoon) in Dallas start as soon as 3-3:30, and last as late as 7-7:30.
What's ridiculous is the stark and remarkable difference. Despite being theoretically even, there is a vast gap between the commutes of both cities. Boston isn't perfect, or even necessarily good, but it's been almost shocking to drive under 75 and 365 each morning and see bumper to bumper traffic almost regardless of when I wake up.
Again, I'm not an expert. I didn't account for population distribution, or other factors a true expert might. However, from a general and rudimentary accessment I remain surprized at how poor the situation seems.
I'm wondering about how true this "move" is. You'd think with such high profile people being lost there'd be something, well, official?
I realize Game Informer is a major gaming magazine, but it still seems really odd. "Sources" or no, Harrison and Kaplan are pretty important in the hierarchy of NoA, and I find it really weird that Nintendo would silently move/remove all of these people without announcing anything at all.
Not to mention how little sense it makes to move marketing so far away from headquarters.
No release dates, but Nintendo recently stated (explicitly) that these games would be released before 2008.
There was even a slashdot article on it.
I'm sorry, did you use Dallas and "Mass Transit" in the same sentence?
The DART and the busses are "real" I guess, but are drops in the bucket. Their capacity for transporting people is no where near enough to alleviate the massive congestion.
I moved down here from Massachusetts a year ago, so maybe I'm spoiled by the T. However, it still amazes me that Rush Hour lasts from 3 until 7 here.
If I were attempting to make as unbiased an environment as possible for such a debate, as held at a games expo, keeping it secret would be the first idea coming to mind. Announcing months before hand is just asked people passionately for/against Thompson to buy up tickets and otherwise destroy the levelheadedness of the crowds. Waiting until the last minute is perfectly understandable.
Unless you're Jack Thompson apparently.
Personally what scares me is the amount of vitriol spewed when the servers aren't up 2 minutes after the exact moment they should have been.
3 days? I can't even begin to imagine the horror.
I'll second that.
While a flawed analogy, lets say that Windows users attempting to move to Mac are like people recovering from broken legs or a similar injury which impedes standard walking. You don't just throw a cast on them and tell them to walk out of the hospital, you give them a pair of crutches.
Eventually, they won't need crutches anymore and they're good to go. Until then, people used to Windows need all the help/reasons they can get to bother trying to walk through the Mac OS.
I'm one of those morons who ditched their old consoles with the advent of each new one. Now, Nintendo, Sega and the rest get to sell me nostalgia at top dollar.
I've purchased 4 NES games, 2 SNES, 2 Sega Genesis and 3 N64 games thus far. It's not an average, but assuming it is we divide 4.7 million by 11 and get 427,000ish people like me in the world.
Scary, eh?
Balancing WoW in SC/RTS terms:
9 races/factions with 3 separate and viable tech trees fighting in two or more drastically different types of battle.
Heck, that's oversimplifying it by a long shot.
Blizzard doesn't just have to account for every class, but every class spec. Not just every class spec, but every class spec/gear combination. Not just every class spec/gear combination, but every group dynamic possible. Not just every group dynamic possible, but every situation that group dynamic is going to face.
The only finite number in that horrific beast is the number of classes. I'm personally amazed that given the number of default tools and speccable options each class is granted there is any semblence of balance at all.
WoW is not perfect by any stretch, but it's also not some horrific monster of imbalance.
There are several options.
1) The very beginning: This has the advantage that you get to see the series evolve. To my knowledge, the lost episodes are largely 2nd and 3rd doctor. There's probably a list somewhere you can look it up.
The special effects are circa the era the show aired in. If you aren't fond of the age old effects, this might not be the start for you.
2) Third Doctor onward: The jump between the second and third doctors was large enough that one could viably start here without needing the previous backstory. By this point, the series had established most of its tenants.
3) Fourth Doctor onward: Not as good a spot as the others, but Tom Baker was the most popular doctor, had the longest run, and had a couple episodes written by Douglas Adams.
4) Ninth Doctor onward: Skip the old series entirely, go to the new series. You gain the benefit that you'll quickly be up to speed with other people starting here, but you'll probably feel inadaquate when some diehard who watched the series as it aired starts rambling about the other doctors.