Oh wait... the actual problem was the exact opposite? Right.
The actual thread title is, of course, "BG&E2: Making one of the worst aspects of the first game even worse"... I mean, BG&E had such a low difficulty level, how do you even MAKE it easier?
The trailer is decent though, I guess. Nothing special, but decent.
I honestly wouldn't have expected this, but one of the first games to use the Wii Fit as a controller [and by a third party, no less] is actually, dare I say it?, fun to play? Seriously, racing down slopes, pulling off tight turns, and doing awesome tricks, all while using the balance board to controler you skier, is really fun.
Yeah, it costs quite a bit, but Wii Fit is cool too.
I've recently been thinking about the steady improvements in the online experience courtesy of MS, Sony, Valve, and the etcetera. The one thing I note is while they are great, the one fundamental weakness of these systems is their utter dependance on an existing architecture owned and operated by one company. That's in contrast to the internet as a whole, which is standardized by agreement and just sorta works with everything because everyone works to keep it that way.
This same issue comes up with all the currently used chat programs by the way. All of them are dependant on one specific architecture.
The one thing unifying all net experience is IP address right now, however I think that should be improved upon.
I've been thinking that the next big jump in the online arena is to unify all the architecture. All the current game servers will still, as with any website or other service, all operate on respective company servers and major server farms. The difference is it'll be standardized and interoperable. That is, Sony's service and MS's service will be totally invisible to the player. One would just plug in their game and all those lists would all talk to each other. This would also force Nintendo to play catch-up as a side effect :D. It would mean that I would be able to see such meta data as all my friends, what system they are currently logged into, what game they are playing, and if they are designed for it, I would be able to take my 360 copy and their PC copy and play a vs match cross-platform with no issue at all.
Basically, the creation of a "user name" would be universal. I imagine it would be akin to creating a web site address, a currently universal thing as well, which is added to a database shared across all companies. There may be a fee involved depending on how the companies go about doing this.
So the oceans are being overfished, oil is being over consumed, and energy demands are higher than ever.
I think it's about time to seriously consider limiting the number of offspring humans make. It is time to rebel against our short-sighted genes or it'll doom us all. All they do is blindly build us at the start and from there they no longer have direct control. Our ability to rationally realize that our gene's best interests are pretty much irrelevent and overcome it is simply a happy misfiring that genes, shortsighted as they are, never could have seen coming. Nothing really physically impossible about "defying" them then.
My point is, I think we are reproducing far too much. Now laws are a tricky business. Who gets to decide which people get to reproduce after all? However, and I've said this before, it need not be legal limits on it, but practical ones. Changing the next generation may be enough to turn the tide. First of all, the taboo-ing of things like condoms needs to stop. That's always been dangerously ridiculous. Secondly, I really think that genetic research into making reproduction an opt-in procedure at the very least should be undertaken. If someone can willingly turn on and off ovulation and/or sperm production, that should cut down on unplanned events by a massive amount.
The last would be a bit of social engineering. I think people in general need to stop considering it their "right" to have children. Before you say anything, keep in mind that we ALREADY think this to a certain extent. If parents are abusive to their kids, we as a modern society have collectively agreed that they don't get to keep them simply by right, that children are not property. Further some people, myself included, think that someone who is clearly not capable of taking care of kids shouldn't be allowed to keep them even if they aren't actively trying to abuse them. Further still, it's finally starting to become clear that abuse can take the form of parents forcing children to take up a vegen diet (in which case some kids where this happened starved to death) and parents who's personal beliefs make them say their kids can't get life saving surgery, or who decide not to vaccinate their kids, are performing abuse (and in the latter case, endangering other kids as there's a needed critical mass of vaccinated people in order to hault the flow of a disease entirely).
Further, as a society we agree that if someone keeps a house full of pets and doesn't get them neutered, to the point where they have a household of 30 or 40 cats, the cats need to be taken away.
The next step is saying that perhaps people should be taught from birth that it's socielly irresponsible to just make kids repeatedly just for the sake of making them.
![[Image: huya.jpg]](http://www.banditobooks.com/ezine/mceimages/huya.jpg)
![[Image: a82982d9-8acd-460d-a060-5c88d67a1b59.jpg]](http://images.commentfarm.com/images/a82982d9-8acd-460d-a060-5c88d67a1b59.jpg)
