The wolf thing was a "new" addition to Zelda... but then again I didn't like it much, heh. Anyway the core gameplay is very much "good ol' Zelda" and to be honest I like it that way ^_^
I have Twilight Princess... I think it plays a lot like Ocarina as well as other Zeldas. It doesn't feel like a "different design" to me in the sense that even Mario Sunshine compared to Mario 64 did... but anyway, I still don't see how this gives his comment more validity. As much as Nintendo always privileges innovation, it's *design done right* (innovative or not) that sells and that people enjoy. Nintendo, luckily for us gamers, designs stuff well and does it right a lot of the time ^_^
A big risk Nintendo took with the N64 was the controller. An analog joystick that players had to get used to -- it could have failed completely but the design was solid enough (and play control in Mario 64 tight enough; forget about Shadows of the Empire haha good grief, awesome game but the controls... T_T) that it took off.
The 3D jump had already started before N64. Nintendo just showed people how to do it *right.*
Miyamoto is a genius and possibly a demigod, but sometimes what he says just doesn't make sense to me... I think that his success is largely attributable not to the fact that he innovates within his franchises (especially considering the Pokemon franchise, Twilight Princess going back to the "Ocarina" design, Mario Kart for DS being essentially MK64, and so forth), but with two other things: 1) it has to do with the fact that these franchises started off SO AMAZINGLY HIGH-QUALITY (for their time, at the very least) and retained that quality regardless of whether they were "re-imagined" or not. More of the same (design-wise) is great if it was awesome to begin with. 2) it has to do with the fact that some of Nintendo's innovation is also VERY HIGH-QUALITY. When I say this I mostly think of Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, but the Wii as a piece of technology is another example. (The Virtual Boy isn't, hence the "some innovation" ^_^)
A more rubbish developer/publisher can innovate within its franchises all it wants, but it won't reach any level of success unless the franchises start strong and the innovation keeps them strong by being well designed/executed. Likewise, a strong developer does not need to innovate within a franchise (to the degree that Miyamoto suggested) to remain successful. Halo, Ninja Gaiden, DMC, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and even Zelda are examples of very strong franchises that remain[ed] strong even without massive innovation in successive titles.
There is Supreme Court case law that does say the Constitution restricts the government when it acts extraterritorially, but I'm not sure how far-reaching it is nor how exactly that interacts with other treaties/conventions. The best way to view the Constitution is as a contract between the government and its people. When dealing with the government's actions outside of the US (that is, not with regards to "its people" in this same sense), how binding this contract is, is open to interpretation (it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution itself). Hence why there is case law on the issue in the first place. Anyway, case law is rarely so far-reaching that it covers all situations and all bases, and once again there is the matter of international treaties to consider -- these are what regulate how we treat POWs, etc. -- so I think with regards to the current topic we are dealing with politics and personal "morals" more than any definite law. Considering the practical reason for restoring habeas corpus -- accountability and the protection of innocents -- makes far more sense to me than simply shouting "illegal!" when I don't really see the government being tried in court over the issue...
The "traitor" label you chose to throw out there shows very little class, by the way. It also doesn't make sense; treason is something the government would be concerned with more so than those who oppose the government.
NO, it's *not* the Constitution that binds the U.S. government in that case, it's international Conventions!! By your logic every country's international activities are simply regulated by their own constitutions. That is not the case. Anyway you can repeat yourself all you want, reality won't change.
Agh bro if they are being detained *outside of the US* then they are bound NOT by the Constitution of the United States but by various conventions: the Geneva Convention in some cases, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) in others, etc. That's just how it works. The law as outlined in the Constitution does not protect nor bind you if you are not in the US.
You need to consider context. The Constitution does not apply to, say, Burmese living in Burma (an example of someone who does not reside in the US; I can't believe you didn't comprehend at least that bit). "Powers of Congress" has no bearing there in the first place. It's the Constution of the United States, after all.
Hehehe that's right I don't want to picture naked slashdotters sitting around at the compootar scratching their hairy bellies. It's bad enough with just shorts.
from the put-your-cock-back-in-your-pants department
The other day Kohls... business peoples.. got together and talked about how people wear way more clothes when they go outside than when they stay at home. "This whole 'real world' is frigging nuts as far as how much clothing the average person needs to wear when being active in it." Turns out that performing simple tasks like scratching one's belly or sitting around doing jack squat requires no more than a pair of shorts. But demanding real world tasks like walking outside and buying groceries requires no less than 200% more clothing. "We are gonna make a killing with this new realization," said a Kohls business dude to a hobo on the street pretending to be a news correspondent.
Yeah well those last things you mentioned aren't regulated by the Constitution, just so you know.
Your copy of the Constitution isn't the U.S. one, maybe, if you think it applies to non-residents/immigrants. It sometimes mentions citizenship explicitly (as in who can run for president for instance) but generally doesn't. Nevertheless please don't assume it's a Constitution for the Solar System or something. Just USA.
You make a good point. Though I think it's reasonable to expect a nation to protect the rights of its citizens/residents and not necessarily those of others, I also feel that with such an approach there is not enough ACCOUNTABILITY on the part of those who are in a position to respect (or not) the rights of non-citizens/residents.
So, having pondered the issue a bit more, I do think that habeas corpus is a step towards having that accountability. Nevertheless, I also think that some detainees deserve more respect/protection than others, and that perhaps a tiered sort of protocol is in order. In other words, I expect the U.K. and the U.S. to be nicer to each other's citizens than, say, the U.K. and Syria. In the world we live in, that just makes sense to me.
It depends entirely on the game, of course, but it IS true that a lot of developers have been utilizing the DS touch screen and Wiimote seemingly just for the sake of utilizing them, and to no good effect.
Think Castlevania for the DS with the "trace this BS shape to finish off the boss" mechanic that we all fell in love with (just kidding WTF was with that) or the "press the screen to change map types" functionality in Mario Kart DS or the horriblicious controls for games like Mario Hoops 3v3. There are many games that would have been better off being released on a "standard controls" console because then the devs would not have been tempted/coerced/whatever into making some half-ass use of the new interface the DS and Wii provide.
The only point on which you and I *may* disagree is that developers are "new to doing it right." I submit that most are just too lazy/stupid to do it right and should attempt it in the first place.
Not granting them the same rights as US citizens isn't "resorting to tactics from the [terrorist] play book." Far from it. The "destroying freedom" argument makes no sense to me, as if we are discussing our "enemies" then these are people that by their convictions/actions have basically forfeited their "freedom" and the rest of the world is better off for it.
Besides, there is no risk to the liberty of Americans here. We are as far from US citizens being stripped of constitutional rights as we've ever been. There is no slippery slope here. Republicans care just as much about *their* constitutional rights as do Democrats.
Mod parent up. Seems most of the people upset at this development don't actually have a clue about what it pertained to. This is about extending habeas corpus to detainees outside of the US. These detainees are most likely terrorist suspects.
I'm not surprised the Republicans were largely against the proposed amendment; what's interesting is that the Democrats were all so staunchly for it, possibly just so they could complain more about the current administration.
Hahah well I was trying to make my point but in a realistic manner. People *do create solutions to problems* using the skills they possess; they just sometimes have to adapt these skills in ways that are less efficient than if they had a broader skillset to begin with. A very large number of square pegs is more of a burden than one round one in the real world -- my point was that this is analogous to the solutions you run into in the IT world.
Indeed, how many times have you (if you are a programmer) looked at someone else's code and thought, "well it's clear that this was written by someone who only knew one way to do it, and far from the best way..." ^_^
Primarily, yes. Just like most Wii owners I know (who got it as soon as they could) primarily bought it for Smash Brawl. But for now I've been enjoying Oblivion, DOA4, Gears of War, Forza 2, and a couple of other games very much. I don't have that much free time for games so between those and my PS2, PC, Cube, and DS, I'm basically set for a while. Halo 3, Mass Effect, and a couple other titles will hold me over until NG2. Plus I'll get a Wii for Smash and Galaxy in the meantime.
Yeah this game is 50% of the reason I got a 360 a year ago. (The rest of its game library including upcoming games is the other 50%.) It was my favorite game of the previous generation, besides Morrowind which I played on PC. NG2 is likely to be my fav game of this generation not counting Oblivion, heh. Gotta get both my action and adventure fix, heh.
Yeah, there's gameplay footage and a "teaser" and screenshots available -- I think you can check ign.com for them. It's officially on 360; in fact it's being published by MS rather than TECMO as far as I know so there's no way it will be cross-platform, heh.
Oh, and yes, the game PWNS N000BZ hard!! Looks wicked.
The problem is, what exactly are people going to be ranked *in*? Smash Bros has so many ways to be played that many people switch the settings up match after match, and every unique setup has an effect on what player performs better.
Competitive SSBM matches tend to be 1v1 or 2v2 (team attack on), with rather specific settings (that change over time as the community decides what levels are and aren't well-balanced, etc.). Should ranking be limited to setups of this sort? What if you're interested in being matched against a player who is a veteran of *this setup* as opposed to 4-man free-for-all using only bob-ombs on max frequency? What if you're interested in a less common setup? Would you be able to find someone at all if they need to be "ranked" in it?
Basically Smash doesn't lend itself well to the online multiplayer model that Halo, War3 and DOA have, mostly due to the major customization that you can do. Perhaps a new multiplayer model is in order, but I don't know what it would be and I think it would be quite complex if it involves some sort of reliable/usable ranking system.
I used to be a pretty hardcore Smasher so I can imagine what sort of setup the Smash community might want...
One possible [partial] solution is to have no ranking except in certain set "formats" that Nintendo creates and updates from time-to-time using feedback from the community. They can start off using MLG's Smash rules for a 1v1 and 2v2 setup. The "hardcore" players would probably play that and be fine getting ranked in it.
Sounds like you don't actually know what Smash Bros is, if that's your suggestion in response to what I posted. It's not a technological issue; it's one of interface, efficiency, and ultimate usefulness.
Ninja Gaiden 2, Resident Evil 5 == might end up being the two best games for the console when all is said and done (well along with Halo 3 if it fully delivers).
There's also the Gears of War sequels... hopefully...
It's a good idea to make online battles non-ranked. A huge reason is that Smash battles are so customizeable. Item frequency (if any), the items available for the match, the number of lives per player (or maybe HP, or maybe coins collected? etc), the levels allowed via random select, team attack on/off, handicap on/off, etc.
There is so much to bother with that it would be nigh-impossible to implement a reliable ranking system that actually reflects any sort of skill. If all you want to be ranked in is no-item 4-stock 10-minute-timer 1v1 on a subset of stages (typical of SSBM singles tourneys), you'd have seek out opponents willing to play that particular setup. Across what setups would they by chance be ranked, and would some care?
It's basically a pointless and overly complicated system as a result.
If rankings were to matter, they'd have to be on some common terms (e.g. MLG rules), and in Smash coming up with those common terms is far from easy, nor is it reasonable to expect everyone who wants to play a ranked match online to want to observe them in the first place. Considering that even MLG Smash tournament rules evolve over time, this system would have to be updated semi-regularly.
With all this in mind, given that there IS no standard "setup" for online matches, a matchmaking system based on wins-losses would be very unreliable (and possibly fragment the online playerbase).
Slashdot Mirror
The wolf thing was a "new" addition to Zelda... but then again I didn't like it much, heh. Anyway the core gameplay is very much "good ol' Zelda" and to be honest I like it that way ^_^
I have Twilight Princess... I think it plays a lot like Ocarina as well as other Zeldas. It doesn't feel like a "different design" to me in the sense that even Mario Sunshine compared to Mario 64 did... but anyway, I still don't see how this gives his comment more validity. As much as Nintendo always privileges innovation, it's *design done right* (innovative or not) that sells and that people enjoy. Nintendo, luckily for us gamers, designs stuff well and does it right a lot of the time ^_^
A big risk Nintendo took with the N64 was the controller. An analog joystick that players had to get used to -- it could have failed completely but the design was solid enough (and play control in Mario 64 tight enough; forget about Shadows of the Empire haha good grief, awesome game but the controls... T_T) that it took off.
The 3D jump had already started before N64. Nintendo just showed people how to do it *right.*
Miyamoto is a genius and possibly a demigod, but sometimes what he says just doesn't make sense to me... I think that his success is largely attributable not to the fact that he innovates within his franchises (especially considering the Pokemon franchise, Twilight Princess going back to the "Ocarina" design, Mario Kart for DS being essentially MK64, and so forth), but with two other things:
1) it has to do with the fact that these franchises started off SO AMAZINGLY HIGH-QUALITY (for their time, at the very least) and retained that quality regardless of whether they were "re-imagined" or not. More of the same (design-wise) is great if it was awesome to begin with.
2) it has to do with the fact that some of Nintendo's innovation is also VERY HIGH-QUALITY. When I say this I mostly think of Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, but the Wii as a piece of technology is another example. (The Virtual Boy isn't, hence the "some innovation" ^_^)
A more rubbish developer/publisher can innovate within its franchises all it wants, but it won't reach any level of success unless the franchises start strong and the innovation keeps them strong by being well designed/executed. Likewise, a strong developer does not need to innovate within a franchise (to the degree that Miyamoto suggested) to remain successful. Halo, Ninja Gaiden, DMC, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and even Zelda are examples of very strong franchises that remain[ed] strong even without massive innovation in successive titles.
There is Supreme Court case law that does say the Constitution restricts the government when it acts extraterritorially, but I'm not sure how far-reaching it is nor how exactly that interacts with other treaties/conventions. The best way to view the Constitution is as a contract between the government and its people. When dealing with the government's actions outside of the US (that is, not with regards to "its people" in this same sense), how binding this contract is, is open to interpretation (it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution itself). Hence why there is case law on the issue in the first place. Anyway, case law is rarely so far-reaching that it covers all situations and all bases, and once again there is the matter of international treaties to consider -- these are what regulate how we treat POWs, etc. -- so I think with regards to the current topic we are dealing with politics and personal "morals" more than any definite law. Considering the practical reason for restoring habeas corpus -- accountability and the protection of innocents -- makes far more sense to me than simply shouting "illegal!" when I don't really see the government being tried in court over the issue...
The "traitor" label you chose to throw out there shows very little class, by the way. It also doesn't make sense; treason is something the government would be concerned with more so than those who oppose the government.
NO, it's *not* the Constitution that binds the U.S. government in that case, it's international Conventions!! By your logic every country's international activities are simply regulated by their own constitutions. That is not the case. Anyway you can repeat yourself all you want, reality won't change.
Agh bro if they are being detained *outside of the US* then they are bound NOT by the Constitution of the United States but by various conventions: the Geneva Convention in some cases, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) in others, etc. That's just how it works. The law as outlined in the Constitution does not protect nor bind you if you are not in the US.
You need to consider context. The Constitution does not apply to, say, Burmese living in Burma (an example of someone who does not reside in the US; I can't believe you didn't comprehend at least that bit). "Powers of Congress" has no bearing there in the first place. It's the Constution of the United States, after all.
Hehehe that's right I don't want to picture naked slashdotters sitting around at the compootar scratching their hairy bellies. It's bad enough with just shorts.
from the put-your-cock-back-in-your-pants department
... business peoples.. got together and talked about how people wear way more clothes when they go outside than when they stay at home. "This whole 'real world' is frigging nuts as far as how much clothing the average person needs to wear when being active in it." Turns out that performing simple tasks like scratching one's belly or sitting around doing jack squat requires no more than a pair of shorts. But demanding real world tasks like walking outside and buying groceries requires no less than 200% more clothing. "We are gonna make a killing with this new realization," said a Kohls business dude to a hobo on the street pretending to be a news correspondent.
The other day Kohls
Yeah well those last things you mentioned aren't regulated by the Constitution, just so you know.
Your copy of the Constitution isn't the U.S. one, maybe, if you think it applies to non-residents/immigrants. It sometimes mentions citizenship explicitly (as in who can run for president for instance) but generally doesn't. Nevertheless please don't assume it's a Constitution for the Solar System or something. Just USA.
Music. Hire Jeremy Soule, Yasunori Mitsuda, Yuki Kajiura, or a film composer. Done.
You make a good point. Though I think it's reasonable to expect a nation to protect the rights of its citizens/residents and not necessarily those of others, I also feel that with such an approach there is not enough ACCOUNTABILITY on the part of those who are in a position to respect (or not) the rights of non-citizens/residents.
So, having pondered the issue a bit more, I do think that habeas corpus is a step towards having that accountability. Nevertheless, I also think that some detainees deserve more respect/protection than others, and that perhaps a tiered sort of protocol is in order. In other words, I expect the U.K. and the U.S. to be nicer to each other's citizens than, say, the U.K. and Syria. In the world we live in, that just makes sense to me.
You have no clue how this relates to the Constitution, do you? I'll tell you how: in no way.
The proposed amendment would give Habeas Corpus to those whom the Constitution *does not apply to in the first place* -- US non-residents.
At least be a *little* responsible when you try to push a political agenda. Oh wait, that would be a contradiction.
It depends entirely on the game, of course, but it IS true that a lot of developers have been utilizing the DS touch screen and Wiimote seemingly just for the sake of utilizing them, and to no good effect.
Think Castlevania for the DS with the "trace this BS shape to finish off the boss" mechanic that we all fell in love with (just kidding WTF was with that) or the "press the screen to change map types" functionality in Mario Kart DS or the horriblicious controls for games like Mario Hoops 3v3. There are many games that would have been better off being released on a "standard controls" console because then the devs would not have been tempted/coerced/whatever into making some half-ass use of the new interface the DS and Wii provide.
The only point on which you and I *may* disagree is that developers are "new to doing it right." I submit that most are just too lazy/stupid to do it right and should attempt it in the first place.
Not granting them the same rights as US citizens isn't "resorting to tactics from the [terrorist] play book." Far from it. The "destroying freedom" argument makes no sense to me, as if we are discussing our "enemies" then these are people that by their convictions/actions have basically forfeited their "freedom" and the rest of the world is better off for it.
Besides, there is no risk to the liberty of Americans here. We are as far from US citizens being stripped of constitutional rights as we've ever been. There is no slippery slope here. Republicans care just as much about *their* constitutional rights as do Democrats.
Mod parent up. Seems most of the people upset at this development don't actually have a clue about what it pertained to. This is about extending habeas corpus to detainees outside of the US. These detainees are most likely terrorist suspects.
I'm not surprised the Republicans were largely against the proposed amendment; what's interesting is that the Democrats were all so staunchly for it, possibly just so they could complain more about the current administration.
Hahah well I was trying to make my point but in a realistic manner. People *do create solutions to problems* using the skills they possess; they just sometimes have to adapt these skills in ways that are less efficient than if they had a broader skillset to begin with. A very large number of square pegs is more of a burden than one round one in the real world -- my point was that this is analogous to the solutions you run into in the IT world.
Indeed, how many times have you (if you are a programmer) looked at someone else's code and thought, "well it's clear that this was written by someone who only knew one way to do it, and far from the best way..." ^_^
Primarily, yes. Just like most Wii owners I know (who got it as soon as they could) primarily bought it for Smash Brawl. But for now I've been enjoying Oblivion, DOA4, Gears of War, Forza 2, and a couple of other games very much. I don't have that much free time for games so between those and my PS2, PC, Cube, and DS, I'm basically set for a while. Halo 3, Mass Effect, and a couple other titles will hold me over until NG2. Plus I'll get a Wii for Smash and Galaxy in the meantime.
Yeah this game is 50% of the reason I got a 360 a year ago. (The rest of its game library including upcoming games is the other 50%.) It was my favorite game of the previous generation, besides Morrowind which I played on PC. NG2 is likely to be my fav game of this generation not counting Oblivion, heh. Gotta get both my action and adventure fix, heh.
Yeah, there's gameplay footage and a "teaser" and screenshots available -- I think you can check ign.com for them. It's officially on 360; in fact it's being published by MS rather than TECMO as far as I know so there's no way it will be cross-platform, heh.
Oh, and yes, the game PWNS N000BZ hard!! Looks wicked.
The problem is, what exactly are people going to be ranked *in*? Smash Bros has so many ways to be played that many people switch the settings up match after match, and every unique setup has an effect on what player performs better.
Competitive SSBM matches tend to be 1v1 or 2v2 (team attack on), with rather specific settings (that change over time as the community decides what levels are and aren't well-balanced, etc.). Should ranking be limited to setups of this sort? What if you're interested in being matched against a player who is a veteran of *this setup* as opposed to 4-man free-for-all using only bob-ombs on max frequency? What if you're interested in a less common setup? Would you be able to find someone at all if they need to be "ranked" in it?
Basically Smash doesn't lend itself well to the online multiplayer model that Halo, War3 and DOA have, mostly due to the major customization that you can do. Perhaps a new multiplayer model is in order, but I don't know what it would be and I think it would be quite complex if it involves some sort of reliable/usable ranking system.
I used to be a pretty hardcore Smasher so I can imagine what sort of setup the Smash community might want...
One possible [partial] solution is to have no ranking except in certain set "formats" that Nintendo creates and updates from time-to-time using feedback from the community. They can start off using MLG's Smash rules for a 1v1 and 2v2 setup. The "hardcore" players would probably play that and be fine getting ranked in it.
Sounds like you don't actually know what Smash Bros is, if that's your suggestion in response to what I posted. It's not a technological issue; it's one of interface, efficiency, and ultimate usefulness.
Ninja Gaiden 2, Resident Evil 5 == might end up being the two best games for the console when all is said and done (well along with Halo 3 if it fully delivers).
There's also the Gears of War sequels... hopefully...
It's a good idea to make online battles non-ranked. A huge reason is that Smash battles are so customizeable. Item frequency (if any), the items available for the match, the number of lives per player (or maybe HP, or maybe coins collected? etc), the levels allowed via random select, team attack on/off, handicap on/off, etc.
There is so much to bother with that it would be nigh-impossible to implement a reliable ranking system that actually reflects any sort of skill. If all you want to be ranked in is no-item 4-stock 10-minute-timer 1v1 on a subset of stages (typical of SSBM singles tourneys), you'd have seek out opponents willing to play that particular setup. Across what setups would they by chance be ranked, and would some care?
It's basically a pointless and overly complicated system as a result.
If rankings were to matter, they'd have to be on some common terms (e.g. MLG rules), and in Smash coming up with those common terms is far from easy, nor is it reasonable to expect everyone who wants to play a ranked match online to want to observe them in the first place. Considering that even MLG Smash tournament rules evolve over time, this system would have to be updated semi-regularly.
With all this in mind, given that there IS no standard "setup" for online matches, a matchmaking system based on wins-losses would be very unreliable (and possibly fragment the online playerbase).