Crono

@ Damian G.

It is fine to have a dissenting opinion as long as it is based on some kind of reasonable evidence and not partisan divisions or "liberal conspiracy" theories. There is no real scientific debate about global warming anywhere because there is a near universal scientific consensus about global warming in relation to anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases. Many of the "scientists" who tried to cast doubt on the issue in the mainstream media had a conflict of interest or weren't qualified to report on the issue. Take a university science class today or read peer-reviewed scientific journals and you'll see that there is no credible doubt about human induced climate change in looking at the evidence.

Listing off names does not create a dissenting position. Look at the people you named:

Fred Singer: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

Tim Ball:
http://www.kantor.com/2007/02/05/timothy-ball-opinion-without-evidence/

Robert Carter:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html

I picked those four at random and each one of them has questionable academic authority or significant conflicts of interest in reporting on global warming. Deny the scientific body of evidence all you want, but don't try to pretend that there's a credible argument against it lying with these sham authorities and professors.

The results of these polls are completely invalid. Statistics 101 Joystiq: surveys must be taken from a random sample. Any survey that is voluntary, especially ones that are on the Internet are subject to bias and extreme responses. Learn some bloody math before you start doing polls.

Kudos to the Mayo Clinic for pointing out something that no other gaming site mentioned: virtual activity just isn't the same. Rather than buying a Wii and Wii Sports to play a game virtually, parents should be requiring their kids to actually play the sports. There are other parts of sports that don't simply involve exercising; how about learning to work in teams, making friends, building confidence, etc. All these things cannot be gotten from pretending to play real sports in front of a TV.

"Eh, this seems like another one of those "It's virtual, so it CAN'T be as good as the real thing" things. Why? "Because it's virtual, so..."

I heard about another Nintendo game. It's called "Wii Life." You live life...in virtual reality. Use the wiimote to go to school, drive to work and interact with virtual characters. If we're going to pretend to play sports to avoid confronting reality, you might as well just avoid real life altogether. Hooray for virtual reality.

#10- "The bigger picture, as far as I'm concerned, will be the death of the secondary game marked."

I completely agree. I buy nearly all my games used because as it stands, new games are just too expensive. Digital distribution might make games cheaper, but how much cheaper? Knowing game companies, game prices will be reduced, but not dramatically enough to be viable for those of us without a whole lot of money to spend.

"Christ. Offline play? That's last gen. That's LAST LAST gen. Nice to know that the PS3 can't do what a fucking dreamcast was capable of."

"Wow. Another PS3 game with no online. Shocker. I'm really seeing the online matching LIVE. / sarcasm."

Actually the decision to stay offline was made by the developers, not by any limitation of the PS3.

"AM2 isnt into that, its not what VF5 is about."

That's true. If you have any doubt about it, play VF4 Evo and see for yourself. Virtua Fighter is an incredibly complex and demanding fighting game that would be unplayable online which is why I can understand AM2's reluctance to do so.

"No online?

Booooo."

Why does every game have to feature online play? Some games simply should not be taken online and should not have arbitrary multiplayer modes added just to say that they are online-enabled. Are we now going to start complaining about it for every last game?

Although I understand that quite a few people are in love with their DS handhelds, this article, and most of the arguments on this page look at it from a marketing perspective. Yes, putting it on the DS will make them the most money. But how will it affect the actual game?

The fact of the matter is that a handheld is nothing like a console. There are technical limitations such as screen size, sound, graphics, controls, etc. that make it inferior to a real console. As a spin off I could accept this game, but as the real sequel?

Look at gaming history for an example. Let's pick a very famous and entrenched series for comparison: Zelda. Now ask yourself a question. Is there any comparison between a console and a handheld Zelda? Can you say that Zelda: the Minish Cap or any of its other excellent handheld installments have ever been as good as the console versions? Of course not! Link's Awakening doesn't hold a candle to A Link to the Past. The Minish Cap doesn't compare to Windwaker. They're different experiences but it's clear that the handheld experience could NEVER replace the console experience.

So for those of you trumpeting this announcement and praising SE. Well, just wait. If the next Zelda, Metroid or Final Fantasy sequel were exclusively handheld just so that the respective companies could make the most money, well I'd like to see your bloody reaction then.

"...just like any other company in existence, isn't purely operation for nothing but money."

Major grammar errors. Apologies. Should have been "isn't purely operating for anything but money."

"You might consider actually looking at the sources you sight next time. Just a suggestion."

"Patenting a gameboy emulator so that people couldn't reverse engineer their own gameboy emulators... You call that patent abuse?"

Perhaps you should read a bit more before making conclusions. And yes, that is patent abuse.

For your enlightenment: emulators are legal. Therefore Nintendo's patent to stop any kind of emulator creation or usage is an abuse.

"Are emulators legal?

Generally, yes. In 1982, precedent was set in the landmark Coleco vs. Atari case where Coleco produced an Atari 2600 emulator for the ColecoVision. Even recently, Sony was unable to prevent the distribution of the PlayStation emulator "bleem!". However, there have been emulators that used copyrighted BIOS code internally; those have generally found to have been illegal when distributed with that BIOS."

"Is emulation really legal?

Yes it is. The case of SONY V. CONNECTIX found that unauthorized emulation is perfectly legal. It was the decision of the court that CONNECTIX had the right to emulate the SONY Playstation and that reverse engineering of the Playstation BIOS for such a cause fell under fair usage. As a result of this case CONNECTIX was allowed to release it's Virtual Gaming Station for the Mac OS."


Maybe from now on we can treat Nintendo as the corporation that it really is in the same way we talk about Microsoft or Sony rather than pretending that Nintendo, just like any other company in existence, isn't purely operation for nothing but money.

I remember reading an article here on Joystiq about the EFF's list of companies that abuse patents by licensing standard or widely used technology. Nintendo was quite prominent on this list. Nintendo has abused the patent system in the past as well so this is hardly a one way street. If anything should be attacked it should be the ridiculous patenting system currently in practice.

http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=nintendo

My God. If all of you that are ragging on Vlad actually stopped to READ, you would see that this is a summary from a GameDaily article. It's a video game system. Relax.