Good site, but don't you think it's a tad sleazy to use these people's videos without at least letting us click-through to their YouTube channel? I mean it's the absolute least you could do to give them due credit.
> don't you think it's a tad sleazy to use these people's videos without at least letting us click-through to their YouTube channel?
There is no way to answer this question, which means it's intended to blame. This site is clearly under development and I think it's better to encourage rather than discourage. Unless that's your bag, of course.
yup the logo is supposed to be clickable but i think i put up a mask while trying to get the new embed api stuff to work, i'll have to check what that was about.
Well for next time, maybe you could do this thing called "testing" or "QA" before you put a product out there for hundreds of people to use.
EDIT: sorry I know it's negative, but while you're posting stuff about "oh I'm tearing up", what I'm seeing is some guy who wrote a website that steals people's videos without attribution. I realize you didn't "intend" it to do that, but that's what it's doing, and I don't have the psychic powers to know what you "intended" to do with the site.
Oh and he isn't stealing... this would count as a view for them on YouTube and they get the revenue not him... if anything he is driving tonnes of views to them all at once.
Those who rip the video and claim to be the creator on fbook is where you should aim your anger.
Short view times (e.g. opening a video, watching X seconds of it, thinking its going to be boring, and switching away from it) actually count as a negative in terms of youtube's internal rankings
(though this is just what I remember from a pewdiepie video on the topic, I may or may not be remembering correctly)
In my opinion, not having a way to get to the videos and channels of the video creators might even be the more sensible choice, since with a site such as this, people can inadvertedly have a video become viral for possibly embarassing reasons and get their accounts bombarded, become the bad kind of internet famous (meme status) etc.
Just look at one of the comments up top wanting to get a link to a guy eating a jar of mayo...
> The GC was the most powerful console of its generation,
That's not true. The Xbox was far more powerful CPU/GPU-wise, and had far more storage (the 8 GB HD was pretty amazing) so games could install themselves to HD and use virtual memory to increase their performance.
> I love Nintendo and am a huge fan. But part of me can't help but wish Nintendo would just straight up compete with Sony and Microsoft.
Well I don't love Nintendo, I think their consoles are pretty gimmicky and sales are fueled mostly by nostalgia and rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!)
I honestly don't believe Nintendo is capable of competing with Sony or Microsoft. Maybe they could create hardware on-par with a PS4, but they can't get the publisher relations down, nor have they been able to get their online service to feature-parity with Xbox Live circa 2007 after a decade of trying. They also have this awful customer-hostile attitude that simply will not go away.
(Why should anybody have to buy a game title more than once, just because they bought a new game console? That's pure scam, Nintendo. On Xbox, you buy it once and you own it forever. On Nintendo, people re-buy Super Mario Bros 3 like clockwork every 3 years.)
Which is fine. There's already lots of competition in the "high powered console gaming" arena, and Nintendo would run the risk of becoming another SteamBox. And if their strength is nostalgia, maybe embracing that is a good business decision, even if the constant rehashing of the same titles over and over personally makes me gag.
> rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!)
You say that like this is a bad thing. Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again. Every new Mario game, and every new Zelda game, brings something new to the genre. For example, Super Mario Galaxy was a very innovative and award-winning game that had a very unique and well-thought-out core mechanic. And this new Super Mario Odyssey game they announced looks like it has a ton of stuff that hasn't been done in a Mario game before.
And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games. Typically the best games on the whole platform. So it's no surprise that they keep coming back to the same franchises, since they've demonstrated that they can execute extremely well with this IP and that fans absolutely love it. It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.
The innovations they've been doing lately have mostly had diminishing returns. Super Mario Galaxy, for example, was an alright game, but it was nowhere near as innovative as Super Mario 64 was. I don't even remember if I finished it or not, but I remember that SM64 Bowser boss fight to this day.
I don't know if anyone ever argues that Nintento's first party games aren't the best games on their consoles. It just for many, myself included, the 5 or 6 excellent games that come out don't really justify the price of the console and the HDMI slot it occupies. I know I've never been able to justify a WII U (though Bayonetta 2 came close).
I hope they do better with the Switch—I'd love to justify the purchase :-). But I'm certainly not getting one at launch.
The Fire Emblem and Bravely Default series on 3ds are both as good as any series on other platforms. Wii and Wii U are difficult cases but the DS line has in general been an incredibly good console platform. I actually think it was the best of the last generation. Maybe the switch can carry that on but I'm not sure.
The 3DS has some excellent third party exclusive games, mainly RPGs. I really can't think of anything comparable on the Wii or Wii U that I feel I'm missing out on, except for the first party titles.
A lot of people consider Bayonetta 2 to be a console-seller (though personally, I've only tried it for a few minutes and the intro to that game is super confusing). There's also some other great games that, while aren't exclusive, do have unique features on Wii U (e.g. leveraging the gamepad), such as Rayman Legends. As for RPGs, there's Xenoblade Chronicles X.
> Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again.
Let's say I haven't owned a Nintendo console in a long time (which is true-- the last one I bought was a GameCube, which was a piece of crap so I sold it to my step-sister), how would I be able to tell that 2017's Mario is any different than 2014's Mario is any different than 2011's Mario?
If Nintendo genuinely has new game play ideas, maybe they should actually put those ideas in new games. They're not incapable of this-- for example, Splatoon looks genuinely innovative-- but they're more interested in keeping the nostalgia factor than marketing new game concepts. There's one Splatoon for every 10 Mario X or Zelda X or Metroid X.
> And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games.
Possibly; that doesn't make me interested in buying them. The 1998 Psycho color remake was very polished, excellently designed, etc. But it was just an identical remake of a movie that'd already been made, and if you've seen the original there's no point to seeing the remake.
> Typically the best games on the whole platform.
Because Nintendo's great at games, or because they can't convince anybody else to develop games for their wonky-ass platforms? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Just to drop a note here from the Xbox universe, the Xbox perennial first-party title is Halo. Halo 4 and Halo 5 kind of suck. Kind of suck a lot, really. But the strength of Xbox is that if Halo sucks, you can play Titanfall or Evolve or Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare or Battlefield 4 or... you get the point. And that's just in that one genre.
Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft (and Sony) isn't crippled by bad first-party games. If they were they'd probably put a heck of a lot more effort into ensuring their first-party games didn't kind of suck. So it's kind of an apples-to-orange comparison. Nintendo first-party titles are good because Nintendo has far more incentive to make them good.
> It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.
Of course not; that's exactly what I've been saying. The company relies almost exclusively on nostalgia to sell its products. Mario and Zelda are nostalgic titles.
They're not remakes. There's a difference between using the same characters in brand new games, and remaking old games. Your entire comment reads as though you consider them to be literal remakes, and that's completely wrong. People aren't also just buying them for nostalgia. After all, they're new games, it's hard to be nostalgic about new stuff. People are buying them because they're really really fun. And you'll note that kids, who definitely don't have nostalgia for the old games, also consider them to be really really fun, so it's really not just because people liked the previous games.
You're kind of missing my point. That's great for the person who is already a Nintendo fan and already plays every Mario game like clockwork.
As a person who hasn't own a Nintendo console in a decade, what would be my incentive to buy one to play Mario? How the heck would I be able to tell that the Nintendo Switch Mario is any different than the ones that came before? If it is in fact different, why the heck isn't it in a different series?
(Of course the answer to that last one is: Nintendo's sales are fueled entirely by nostalgia, so of course they want the Mario or Zelda game on it because it's basically "free sales". People will buy it just because it says Mario on the cover. Which, going back to my first post, I find disgusting.)
So Nintendo is doing a great job (presumably) marketing to people who already love their products, but what reason are they giving a person who doesn't to try out the product?
You keep missing the most important point, which is that these games are very fun. That's the reason for someone who hasn't played a Mario before to pick it up.
> As a person who hasn't own a Nintendo console in a decade, what would be my incentive to buy one to play Mario?
Because it's a lot of fun.
> How the heck would I be able to tell that the Nintendo Switch Mario is any different than the ones that came before?
If you haven't played the ones before, then you don't really have a point for comparison. But in that case, the question doesn't seem meaningful at all. Why does it matter that it's different than the previous games, as long as it's fun? You certainly don't have to buy the latest console just to play Mario, you could buy an older console in order to play the older games. Or you could buy the latest console and then pick up older games on the Virtual Console. That said, if you're going to start with Mario (or Zelda or any other Nintendo IP), it's never a bad idea to go with the latest, then if you like it you can pick up the older games. Of course, if you're playing games from older platforms, the visuals won't be as good as the more recent ones. And you may also find that they're not quite as polished as the later ones, because they learn from their older games so that way each new one is better. Most notably, the current level design philosophy they have with Mario started with Super Mario Galaxy 1 (and refined in 2 and then Super Mario 3D Land), so the older games will feel a little different (info about this level design philosophy can be found in this interview - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/168460/the_structure_o...). And of course there's an obvious important difference between the 2D Mario games and the 3D Mario games.
> If it is in fact different, why the heck isn't it in a different series?
Why? It's not radically different, every Mario game has a lot of commonalities (though each new game tends to introduce something new to the formula). And just in general, why throw away an IP that millions of people love? There's literally no upside to doing that.
Also, if we consider Zelda instead of Mario, even though each Zelda game is a brand new story, they're all connected to each other (a timeline of all games through Skyward Sword can be found from the book Hyrule Historia, or at https://zeldawiki.org/images/7/7c/Timeline_Hyrule_Historia.j...). But there are also really big differences between the games. As one example, The Wind Waker takes place on a series of islands scattered across a large sea, and you have a boat (that talks) that you literally sail from island to island, and with a lot of related mechanics around that. Compare that with the other Zelda games, where every other game takes place mostly on land without any sailing (except for Phantom Hourglass, which was a direct sequel to Wind Waker). Similarly, almost every game follows an entirely different character, but each character is basically a reincarnation of the Hero Of Time (Link).
Define "online services". Xbox Live still lets you do quite a few things for free. (Although I gladly admit the free capabilities suck compared to the Gold capabilities.)
Note: they mean exceeding in the bad direction, not the good direction. At first I thought this was some kind of spoof article, or Chrysler marketing effort. It should probably read "exceeding limits" not "exceeding standards".
EDIT: actually the press release doesn't even say that really. It says Fiat Chrysler installed software that could impact emissions testing but didn't tell the EPA about it, which is considered a violation of the Clean Air Act. It doesn't say the software cheats on tests.
"This testing revealed that the FCA vehicle models in question produce increased NOx emissions under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use."
Still seems like they go out of their way to not say that the increase in emissions exceeded any limits. The violation is specifically that the specific software was not disclosed.
Wow. Someone needs to tell the EPA about the inverted pyramid.
You can't blame me for missing that when they bury the lede in the very last paragraph.
That aside, the headline here still says the opposite of what it means to say. Exceeding the standard is a good thing. Exceeding the emissions limit is a bad thing.
For automotive scandals like e.g this one and Dieselgate it's always surprising how much outrage people muster.
If an automaker sells N cars exceeding some emissions limit by 100%, people get out the pitchforks.
But if that same automaker sells 2N conforming cars, it's widely heralded as a Good Thing.
However, to a first approximation, the environmental impact is equivalent in each case (or arguably worse in the latter case, because of increased energy and materials consumption).
But... but! If you sell N cars exceeding the limit, someone else will sell the other N cars of the 2N in your "2N conforming cars" in the other possibility, and they'd emit, too! Or does selling N cars exceeding the limit somehow eliminates the demand for the other N?
I mean you can say that the limit is too low, but I don't understand this N/2N argument at all.
Also, I dunno about pitchforks, but if I park illegally, I'll get a ticket, even though maybe the parking restrictions are wrong in some important sense, and I'd sorta like it if law applied to corporations. If that's a pitchfork then it's a pitchfork to fine me for how I park my car.
I think the outrage is justified; how can we possibly coordinate an effort to reduce our environmental impact without respecting the relevant regulations? To extend your example, suppose new regulations are introduced that reduce emissions limits by 50%. An automaker that respects the regulations would likely modify their products in order to remain in compliance, thereby reducing their environmental impact by 50%. On the other hand, an automaker that disregards the regulations would likely take no action and the environmental damage would continue.
schwarrrtz is right on. But also, you have to consider that the new, conforming cars are very likely to be replacing cars that were much more harmful in terms of pollution.
You can argue about the balance of increased energy and materials consumption of a new car vs continued operation of a more polluting older car, but given the march of time, the older car's replacement is inevitable. So then it's a question of WHICH new car is going to replace the shitty old one-- is it going to be an (a) efficient, compliant vehicle, (b) a gas-guzzler and pollutant emitter, or (c) a car that pretends to be compliant but is a horrible emitter.
The outrage comes when people think they're replacing their crappy old car with (a) but end up with (c).
Someone "accuses" you of wrongdoing (negative direction). Exceeding standards usually means better than the standard (positive direction). I agree with you. Title needs an update.
Perhaps eventually our technology will out-pace NK's artillery so that Seoul will be basically immune from attack. We're nowhere close to that at the moment. Iron Dome isn't even entirely effective against a few artillery pieces, and NK has something like 20,000. Most of them already pre-aimed at Seoul.
