Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SargeSmash

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 35
Gaming Discussion / Re: Nintendo Admits Wii U Is A Flop? Interesting...
« on: January 22, 2014, 03:29:21 pm »
I think he's being a touch too dire here.  Especially his statement that everyone that is going to buy one has already.  If I had a quarter for everyone that I've heard on the Internet that said they'd buy one when the next price drop or Smash hits, I'd be a rich man.  I really do think folks are holding off until they view it as being its proper value.  Heck, I probably wouldn't own one now if GameStop hadn't had a special on the Deluxe Set at $250.  That was the magic point for me, and I think it is for a lot of others, too.  Plus, I don't think Mario alone is enough to move units.  There's significant diversity even amongst the Nintendo faithful, and they're all waiting for different things.

I know it was probably a throwaway line, but I think Steam Machines are going to flop hard.  I do see the PC-console convergence, though.

They may still end up with a Gamecube in the end, but Nintendo is most assuredly not "doomed".  (Good grief, I'm a Ninty fan, though, that last rant at the end nearly had me cheering.)

Gaming Discussion / Re: Nintendo Admits Wii U Is A Flop? Interesting...
« on: January 22, 2014, 12:20:18 pm »
Sarge: I was more saying when the game's design does not suit motion controls. Epic Mickey was used as an example because it reallllllllly didn't suit them, the game being slammed in the press due to its camera controls being utter shite.

If it's a case where the game actually works with motion controls optimally, such as a light gun game, or a drawing game, or some other thing that is escaping me right now(And surely some are), then yeah motion controls only, but otherwise you just fuck over people who prefer standard controllers or those who can barely use motion controls, like myself. I'm a goddamned cripple, and a lot of games that do not need motion controls used them.

Optimal solution for Nintendo would have been to require both types of controls unless you apply and get an exception, but that's Nintendo for you. Lack of foresight(To be fair MS and Sony have lack of foresight as well, just not as bad).
I think we're mostly in agreement.  Didn't know you had some physical issues, I can see where that would change your perspective on these things significantly.  I completely agree, shoehorning it in is just stupid.  Multiple options are certainly good as well.  As much as I enjoyed it, I would have paid good money to be able to use the d-pad in the DS Zelda games.  (By the way, A Link Between Worlds is phenomenal.)

I hear you. I'm basically all about pen and paper.
Fun stuff!  The permanence of pen always gives me the willies, though, I guess I'm not good enough at planning ahead.  :P

Well, I totally understand what you mean. The day that my brother and sister played Metroid for the first time demonstrated the expectations of someone who's never gamed before. First my brother played, and once he reached the first tall vertical shaft that Samus has to ascend, he did something interesting. He would jump for a platform, and in mid-air while pressing the d-pad in the direction of the jump, he would also move the controller in an arc that would have led Samus to the platform. He did this over and over with each jump.

Once my sister's turn came, she did the exact same thing! I explained to them that the game didn't work that way, but clearly they were expecting a much more natural experience from the controller.
Yep, I remember even doing as much myself.  It's just getting into it, and it just took time to condition myself to not lean or whatever.  The irony, of course, is that it still kicks in from time to time.  I think the one that hits me the most is if I'm playing a 3D game, and I'm trying to look around a corner, and the camera won't let me do it, I'll literally start trying to lean the proper direction to look out further.  There's got to me some interesting stuff they could do with that.  :)

I don't see anything wrong with devising new schemes of control, but the traditional controller works quite well. The controller has evolved to make room for better and more fluid means of control, too. For example, imagine playing Katamari without analog sticks. It can be done but not as smoothly.
Oh, I definitely agree.  I'm still very much an old-school gamer, so I still mostly pine for traditional controls.  I also recognize that I've had 25+ years of that ingrained in my head, so I'm a little biased in that way.  (Analog sticks are good for lots of things, to be sure.  It benefited racing games quite well, too, although die-hards would tell you to use a racing wheel!)

I wouldn't know, I only have a second hand PlayStation 2 that someone gave me ten years ago!
Nothing wrong with that!  I used to be well behind the curve.  I'm still behind it, just not quite as far anymore.  I usually give in on a new system in about year two or three, now that I have income.

Gaming Discussion / Re: The giving away stuff thread
« on: January 21, 2014, 05:35:00 pm »
Oh, DP is in the current gala bundle? Hm, I was very interested in the game, but I heard the port is abysmal.
I think they just didn't mess with improving anything from the console, probably locked in with the same resolutions and textures and whatnot.

EDIT:  Looks like the primary issue is that it's locked in at 720p.  Apparently there's a mod in alpha that bumps up the res, so it's probably not something that's unfixable.

Gaming Discussion / Re: Nintendo Admits Wii U Is A Flop? Interesting...
« on: January 21, 2014, 05:33:59 pm »
Quite a few, actually.  Probably the best is Sin and Punishment: Star Successor.  But there were some Dead Space and Resident Evil spinoffs that were supposed to be pretty good, and I also think House of the Dead showed up there.  Those probably don't count as "PD-style", though.

Gaming Discussion / Re: The giving away stuff thread
« on: January 21, 2014, 05:30:00 pm »
The downside is that a ton of dupes tend to crop up in these bundles. Nowadays if there is a new HB announced I usually already have 3 out of 4 games in it. Unless I really really want that 4th game I just skip the bundle. I also unsubscribed to most indie bundle newsletters except for the HB one. It just became too much. 2 or 3 different bundles every single week.
Well, that too.  I've been running into repeats more and more, because I snapped up so much early on.  I mean, there's like three running right now (Groupees, Royale, and Gala), and I haven't bought any of them yet.  Mostly lack of interest in the higher-tier stuff, already having the lower-tier, and generally just having a backlog the size of Texas.  I guess the one I'm most interested in might be Gala, because I've heard things about Deadly Premonition (apparently kind of a cult classic), but sheer apathy seems to have kicked in to some degree.

Gaming Discussion / Re: Nintendo Admits Wii U Is A Flop? Interesting...
« on: January 21, 2014, 05:14:34 pm »
I've been drawing all my life, and started experimenting with digital art in 2008. My conclusion is that using a mouse to draw in a traditional manner is often cumbersome and slow, and usually leads to many errors and much time wasted redrawing and correcting. However, when doing certain kinds of pixel art, or when drawing straight lines, a pen & tablet can be bothersome and the mouse is the way to go.
Oh, yeah, there's definitely cases where a mouse is very useful.  I think that goes back to my original point, if you're using the right tool for the job, then all is well.  It's when you try to do the job with one style of input that is better suited to another that you run into trouble.  (I've been drawing for all my life, too, although I haven't done much in the last couple of years.  I'm still stuck on pencil-and-paper, and I'm not terrible, but I don't have much variability in what I'm able to draw, unlike my brother.)

The same sort of thing applies to video games. Traditional controllers and motion controllers should be applied to functionality that they are suited for, rather than the other way around.
Very much agreed with this.  The inputs themselves aren't the problem, it's how they're used.

I.S.T. brings up a very important aspect of gaming with motion controllers: Not everyone wants to or is capable of using motion controllers, and forcing a Player to use it is terrible design. Games are supposed to be accessible to all. Technology should empower rather than limit.
If I may play devil's advocate here, though...  traditional gaming controllers are a huge barrier to non-gamers.  I've come across lots of people that wouldn't dare pick up a controller because it looks insanely complicated to them.  And ironically, they're kinda right.  We gamers that have grown up in the hobby have had time (at least from my personal experience) to move from the two-primary-button NES controller to the 6-button SNES to the Dual Shock, and all the spinoffs in between.  We've had more time to adjust.  They haven't.  To us, a traditional controller may be empowering, because we can look at a game, and see where things would work just fine with a traditional controller.  Non-gamers, likely, will not see that, and the motion controls might seem more intuitive.

Just a thought.  I'm certainly not a fan of shoehorning in motion or touch or whatever "just because", but there are cases where I think it's central to the vision of the software.  When that's the case, I'm totally okay with forcing motion controls.

Remember when Crimson Dragon was initially slated to be a Kinect exclusive title? Not only was that a pointless decision, but in a way it was a statement: "Traditional controllers never really worked with Panzer Dragoon games."

I'm glad they realized their mistake and chose to implement controller functionality.
Didn't Crimson Dragon turn out kinda iffy, anyway?  Playing the part of a contrarian for just a moment (wheeeee!), I can actually see where a rail shooter might benefit quite well from motion controls if done correctly.  The Wii certainly did quite well with rail shooters.  I can see the Wii remote being quite ideal for a game like Panzer Dragoon, and it's one of those series where, as good as they are, it just begs for a mouse- or stylus-style input device.

Gaming Discussion / Re: The giving away stuff thread
« on: January 21, 2014, 05:01:38 pm »
Yeah, it's hard to resist some of those bundles, especially the $1 tiers.  I'm sitting on...  almost 600 Steam games?  Good grief.

In other news, anyone interested in a Steam copy of Arkham Asylum?

Gaming Discussion / Re: The giving away stuff thread
« on: January 21, 2014, 12:53:13 pm »
Wowzers, looks like someone has been hitting up the indie bundles as much as I have!  ;)

Gaming Discussion / Re: Nintendo Admits Wii U Is A Flop? Interesting...
« on: January 20, 2014, 04:58:29 pm »
Challenge accepted: http://alevice.deviantart.com/

Are all of those MSPaint with a mouse?  Which ones am I supposed to look at?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but it takes a lot of skill, practice, and time to do with a mouse what you can do with a simple pencil and piece of paper.  Or at least that's the way it has always been for me.  My brother is far more skilled than I, and he always uses a tablet and stylus (preferably with Wacom).

Good stuff, by the way!

Gaming Discussion / Re: Nintendo Admits Wii U Is A Flop? Interesting...
« on: January 20, 2014, 02:14:52 pm »
While a mouse and a stylus is certainly a similar device, I would certainly challenge someone to be as accurate in a drawing program with a mouse as opposed to an actual pen-style implement.

I agree that it's not the input method that's the problem, it's the implementation.  The stylus works very well for the things it was designed for, and not so well when it's trying to do things better accomplished with buttons.  While I didn't put much time into Brain Age, just the ability to write numbers on-screen as opposed to picking them out of a list (now I'm getting horrific flashbacks to spelling out words in NES Jeopardy) is an absolute revelation for that kind of software, and removes a significant barrier to non-gamers as well.  This is not a bad thing!

Gaming Discussion / Re: Nintendo Admits Wii U Is A Flop? Interesting...
« on: January 19, 2014, 03:57:45 pm »
It should be noted that their projections were ridiculously rosy in the first place.  I don't think the Wii U is going to be a complete flop, even if it doesn't achieve the stratospheric success that the Wii did.  And if Nintendo hadn't gone the disruptive route, we'd have been talking about this with their non-Wii Gamecube successor many years ago.

The gambit didn't pay off this time (yet).  But taking that chance at least gives them a shot at sniffing first place, as opposed to perpetually in third place.  At least if they end up there this time, they were swinging for the fences again.  (Seriously, guys, the GamePad is awesome, just for the off-screen capability.  I can multitask so much more easily that I wish all my other consoles had this ability tightly integrated.)

Keeping up with the times means going mobile. I don’t care if it’s bad for business; screw everything about that.

Agreed.  Screw that.  Depending on how much convergence we see this gen between PC and consoles this generation, Nintendo might end up in a pretty good spot as having the only home console that doesn't feel like a slightly-compromised gaming PC.

Also, let's talk again when we get Mario Kart and Smash.  I have a feeling that will move some units.

General Discussion / Re: Abortion
« on: January 19, 2014, 03:49:23 pm »
I don't entirely agree.  Abstinence-only used to work pretty well.  But changing social mores have made it much more rare to find someone that has abstained.  It's certainly not impossible, though, at least not as impossible as you seem to indicate.

For those that don't have that sort of discipline, though, yeah, they should use birth control, hopefully one not abortifacient in nature.

General Discussion / Re: So are you guys conservatives or liberals?
« on: January 19, 2014, 03:21:34 pm »
I think the unfortunate thing we've foisted upon American society is this idea that everyone has to have a college degree.  Not everyone is even cut out for it!  I'd rather see trade schools come back strong.

I thought about posting some other stuff about DarkSol's points, but I'd rather just take it easy and not think about it right now.  ;)

Gaming Discussion / Re: New video game ideas
« on: January 16, 2014, 04:05:45 pm »
There are two sequels already... Radical Dreamers and Chrono Cross.
This is true...  they're just terrible at being sequels.  ;)

While I'm thinking about Chrono Trigger, I'd love to see a bug-fixed, rebalanced version of Black Sigil.

I saw someone mention StarTropics III above, and I'd be down for that.  Make it happen, Nintendo.

General Discussion / Re: So are you guys conservatives or liberals?
« on: January 16, 2014, 03:12:48 pm »
Conservative.  I've had friends joke at times that I'm to the right of Rush Limbaugh, which may be a stretch.  But only maybe.  ;)  I am generally disappointed with all of the US' elected leaders, moreso with Democrats than Republicans, but I get more cynical about most Republicans by the day.  It's not a fun position to be in, and why I don't identify as "Republican".  I've learned that Thomas Sowell's words are all too true about politicians and their motivations:  "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems-- of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind."

That being said, I've had some excellent discussions with liberal friends.  If you can find someone that can articulate their point clearly, without venom or prevarication, there's good discussion to be had, even if you vehemently disagree.

Also, as a conservative, I'd counsel the topic creator to not insult the other side right off the bat.  We all carry our biases in, but there's no sense in showing your hand that soon, especially if you want to have an honest discussion!

General Discussion / Re: Abortion
« on: January 15, 2014, 07:40:45 pm »
Because getting your belly cut open is not a hardship anymore ?!
I'm speaking solely to the idea of abortion as a means of keeping an individual from enduring physical or financial hardship in life.  I'm not saying abortion is something that's fun or easy (the procedure is actually quite hard on women).

I'm honestly not sure I'm following your counterpoint.

Also, bad grammar on my part that I need to fix in that post.  Doh.

General Discussion / Re: Abortion
« on: January 15, 2014, 01:48:29 pm »
The problem with unwritten traditions is that, because they're unwritten, they can be changed by anyone to suit their own prejudices, so this particular argument is entirely worthless.
It's not unwritten tradition, though.  It's using Scripture in the New Testament.  Jesus and the apostles set out pretty clearly quite a bit on what doesn't apply anymore, and that includes the whole "unclean foods" thing, as seen in Peter 10:9-16.

EDIT:  It doesn't matter if it was from St. Paul.  He is considered one of the Apostles, and his written word is also considered to be divinely inspired.

I would expect that Jesus would counsel thusly: abortion is not inherently immoral, but throwing away human life because you can't be bothered to use birth control is. It's been shown that poor people who have access to birth control and to abortion services are better able to improve their lives and escape poverty than poor people who don't have such access. I cannot believe that Jesus would require women to carry children to term whose presence would place an unmanageable burden, financially or health-wise, upon those women. It doesn't make sense according to my understanding of Jesus' teachings.

(I'm not entirely sure if the people of his time understood when conception was. Pregnancies aren't even detectable for the first month or two without a pregnancy test, since many women occasionally experience a missed period that has nothing to do with sex. Consequently, I would expect the Bible meant not the literal creation of a zygote, but rather the point in time when a pregnancy would be confirmable without pregnancy tests, where it used the term 'conception'.)

I don't recall seeing anything at all in Jesus' teachings that advocate the destruction of a life because it might cause undue hardship.  In fact, we're outright promised we're going to have hardship in life.  If we use that logic, we should also kill older people that have become a burden, or those that have been born with physical or mental challenges, and so on.  I can't see Jesus entertaining that train of thought.  After all, the dignity of life is not in our physical or life circumstances, but how we handle those circumstances, and use them, regardless of our comfort, to give glory to God.  (I am legitimately curious as to the verses you think would indicate as such, though!  I'm always fascinated by interpretations of Scripture that are not my own.)

As for understanding conception, again, I don't think it matters if we're discussing in the context of the Word of God being absolutely true.  As Christians would consider it to be the divinely-revealed Word of God, it does not hinge on the actual understanding of the recorder (check out the book of Daniel, and how confused he was with some of his prophetic visions).  So if it says conception, it means conception, and I'm sure that's the reason, for example, the Catholic church has their particular dogma about birth control.  I would fall into the Protestant camp, so birth control that prevents fertilization is okay by me, at least by that metric.

Fun discussion!  :)

General Discussion / Re: Abortion
« on: January 14, 2014, 08:51:02 pm »
I have some issues with arbitrary choosing of segments of books, if you are then going to try to consider someone a member of a strong grouping anyway (you can pick and choose all you like, I even encourage it as it is at least some thought gone into it, but you are then following some remixed version at best). Still the old vs new testament stuff is well established (at least until it is not for some other debate, sticking with modern moral debates it is usually about the time homosexuality comes into play) so I can roll with that.

On the conception thing I am curious, I have not seen or heard the passages to that effect (and such a thing would have been quite useful at points, and I imagine made well known). I also have to wonder if it would be that useful as concepts of how pregnancy worked were not well developed however many thousands of years ago the books in question were cooked up. Delving deep into my memory of schoolboy RS I believe the counter argument to be provided for the exam board was something like "in Sermon on the mount young Mr Jesus emphasised the dignity of human life, if a life would then lack dignity, and an unwanted pregnancy can certainly lead to that, then why not?"

Likewise there are measures/yardsticks by which things are determined and allowed, with it skewing towards "only if a danger to the mother is posed" for the later ones.  This can vary by region and all sorts of policy but it is considered from such angles.

It is at this point I usually note a wishy washy line in the sand and start probing for things to change it (contraception, morning after, chemical where foetus is reabsorbed.....) but I will not commit too hard to anything there.

I don't like choosing arbitrarily, either.  However, I do believe the examples I'm giving are consistent with what Scripture states as regarding the New Testament church.

As to the dignity of human life, that's not something that you solve with what would Biblically be murder.  Evil begets evil.  That is a call for the community at large, the brethren, to step up their game.  Jewish culture at the time was pretty bad about that, going so far as to posit that those born with malformities or generally ill circumstances were somehow sinning against God (or their parents).  Books like Job, though, directly refute this idea, as does Jesus in his response to the disciples about the blind man in John 9:1-5.  It's our job, as individuals, to help those in need.  (I'm not sure what you do with someone that was, for example, brain-dead.  There are definitely cases that aren't easy to handle, but they're also exceedingly rare in abortion statistics, and that's probably where someone from a Christian perspective would pray as to the right choice to make.  In that case, the child is probably "dead" by any reasonable measure, and I would leave the decision up to the parents.)

As for the verse about conception, Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalms 139:13-16 speak to that.  Whether they actually understood it or not, however, is immaterial, since for the purposes of this particular side discussion, we are assuming the Bible is true, and that it is the inerrant Word of God.  So we have to, under those constraints, take it at face value, and assume that the willful destruction of a fetus is murder.

Again, I know there are non-Christians here, and do not believe that the Bible is the divinely-inspired Word of God, but in the context of it being true, I think it's a reasonable conclusion to make about Jesus' teachings.

EDIT:  Please note, there's always a chance that I'm wrong.  I'm absolutely sure that there are things in the Bible that I misinterpret just from simple failings of human knowledge and logic.  I feel this one to be pretty straightforward, and it's certainly not an insignificant viewpoint within Christianity, but I'm sure you can find professing Christians that believe otherwise, and I'm certainly not trying to come across as the ultimate authority on all things Christian.  All I can do is present what I and minds much greater than mine have been able to understand in Scripture.

My biggest issue personally is deciding when does that option come off the table. At which point do we classify the fetus as a person. It's not an answer I expect to find in the thread, or come to anytime soon, it's a question I've been thinking about for a very long time.

That's pretty much my feeling on the matter.  For good or for ill, I'd like some clarity, some definition from a medical perspective, on what we consider to be "life".

General Discussion / Re: Abortion
« on: January 14, 2014, 06:25:54 pm »
What about the anti-Christ? Is the life of the anti-Christ sacred? What if there were a scenario where abortion prevented the birth of the anti-Christ? I'd reckon we'd have to kill that baby. Can't have an anti-Christ running around.
I don't know how one would determine that a child is the anti-Christ, for one, and I believe that, if we're following Revelations, there will be at some point a direct indwelling of Satan in that individual.  Up until that point, it is clearly still a human being, and as such is not our place to decide life or death.  Plus, I figure there'd be another to come along.  If we're assuming that the Bible is true, and the anti-Christ exists, there is nothing that will prevent the birth of the anti-Christ, and nothing will prevent prophecy from playing out.

I suppose it's not unlike asking if you could kill Hitler before he was born, would you?  The problem is that we have no knowledge that the person will become who they are (nor can we know with anyone), so as a hypothetical it all falls apart, and we have to view that life as sacred.

Just my two cents, I suppose.  I'm sure there are Christians that might view it differently.

EDIT:  Of course, if we knew that the child would be Hitler, would it not stand to reason that we could change history by influencing the child while he grew up, instead of aborting?  We're already in the realm where we can affect the flow of history, so at that point, death isn't the only option available.  Now, if one gets sent back to when he ascended to power, and he were assassinated, I think it's a different picture entirely, and by some measure justifiable.  (Just some additional thinking on my previous thought line, such as it is.)

General Discussion / Re: Abortion
« on: January 14, 2014, 06:06:49 pm »
I don't know anyone who actually likes abortion. I often see conservatives who speak out against it put forth arguments that insinuate that anyone is actually happy about the procedure and the difficult choices women have to face when they're considering one. I don't see this as an argument worth discussion, either.

My position is that it doesn't fucking matter if it's 'immoral'. So is eating pork. So is eating shellfish. So is wearing mixed-fabric clothing. So is getting tattoos. So is putting white gravy on chicken fried steak.

I'd like to tell you what Jesus said about abortions. I really would. Except he didn't say anything about it.

No offense, but at least for a Christian, none of those things you listed are actually binding.  There's a distinction between moral law which is restated in the New Testament, and as such is still binding for a Christian, and ceremonial law, none of which are reiterated in the New Testament, and as such are not binding to a Christian.

Jesus didn't say anything specifically about abortion, but I suspect He'd be down with holding all life as sacred.  If we're going to use Jesus, and the Bible specifically, then it is stated that God knows an individual at conception, which means an act of eliminating that product of conception would be considered murder.  I know there are a lot of non-Christians here, but if we're going to bring in Christian logic and Jesus' teachings, I'd prefer we get that side of it right.

Anyway...  abortion is a terrible thing.  It is necessary in some instances.  I'm obviously okay with it in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and it is clear that the fetus is non-viable.  I would prefer that we define some objective, medical measure of when "life" begins, one that is not as arbitrary as "inside womb, not life, outside, is life", or a definition that hinges solely upon the wishes of the mother to keep or not keep the child.

Most of them weren't even Christian, but deists, actually.
Not entirely true.  The ones that could most be considered deists were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and even they, in their writings, exhibited leanings that wouldn't be considered Deist by our modern notions of the word.  But that's another topic entirely.  :P

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 35