Now, some people (mostly people who dislike the N64) think this hack that removes anti-aliasing improves N64 graphics. I strongly disagree, all those horrible jaggies in N64 screenshots and videos are so painful to look at! Graphics are about far more than just N64 haters' obsession with bashing its blurred textures, and disabling the anti-aliasing is good evidence for that. Blurred textures are a far less bad thing than screens full of jaggies.
Now of course, I support Hillary, but regardless of that the constant attacks, insults, Republican-fueled lies... it's a real issue.
So I voted in the Maine caucuses back on Sunday, March 6th. I arrived, then spent a full 3 1/2 hours waiting in line (CRAZY turnout here in Portland!), then 1 1/2 more hours waiting because I decided to stay for the actual caucus instead of just doing it as an absentee ballot, then finally the caucus.
I got there at one and finally left at seven... that's a long time to vote. We need to get rid of caucuses, they're absolutely terrible, this much waiting is unacceptable. It was all broken up into different rooms by district and precinct, and in mine only 13 people actually stuck around for the actual caucus, versus several hundred who left absentee ballots.
While I was waiting in that line outside for 3 1/2 hours, the group in front of me were some diehard Bernie fans who amused themselves by saying how much they disliked Hillary (and wanted Bernie to win by the largest margin possible, etc, etc), expecting/hoping she will be indited and charged over her various 'scandals', etc, etc. I didn't say much because arguing with people that dedicated didn't seem worth it, but it was pretty obnoxious. They were far from the only ones like that, too. For another example, there was a guy who walked past outside with a homemade "Hillary for Prison" sign. At the DEMOCRATIC caucus. Nice. They also said that they'd leave absentee ballots, once they finally got in.
Now, once the caucus FINALLY got underway, my precinct ended up being about 71% Bernie, 29% Hillary, including all of the absentee ballots. This meant 21 state convention delegates for Bernie, and 8 for Hillary. Of the 13 people who actually stayed, though, it was 7 for Bernie and 6 for Hillary. (I supported Hillary.) So, of the state convention delegates we were assigning, Hillary and Bernie each got five. Bernie's campaign will have to do some calls or something to find people to fill the rest of those spots, if he wants that margin of victory to actually matter. Heh. While I didn't guess it would be that close beforehand (I thought Bernie would have more), I wasn't shocked; the stereotype is of course that Hillary supporters are more likely to be more dedicated to the party, and I think that's exactly what you saw there. That's why I stayed, certainly... and the same for some of those others. Both of the volunteers running the caucus were pro-Hillary as well. And of course most elected Democratic officials nationwide have endorsed Hillary, though some have endorsed Bernie as well, including several significant Maine Democratic figures. Oh yeah, and one guy there said that he had been undecided until 20 minutes before getting inside, but the sheer amount of obnoxious stuff the Bernie fans were saying convinced him to support Hillary. After having experienced that stuff outside myself as described above, I could understand why. So yeah, basically the Bernie-fan stereotype is not exclusively an internet phenomenon.
As for caucuses in general though, yes, there is some value to them. It lets you have actual conversations with people, including elected officials and party members, and that's a good thing. But as much as I did like that element of caucusing, having to wait hours and hours before you even get in the door (and then hours more once you get in, if you want to actually caucus) is absurd. It's never, ever like that in this state in normal elections, Maine is not one of those places with hours-long waits at regular polling places, and it doesn't have to be this way, we need to go back to primaries. Caucuses only work in off-years when only a couple hundred people go, they do not work in presidential years in anywhere with a larger population.
(Oh, I asked, and apparently Maine uses caucuses now in part because the state has to pay the bills for a primary while the parties pay for caucuses, so it's financially advantageous for the state to hold caucuses instead of primaries. After the debacle that was this years' caucus, though, there is a push to go back to primaries. I certainly hope it happens.)
Last, after Hillary's sweep last Tuesday, the party pretty much has our nominee. I was happy to see that, though of course I like Bernie as well. We just need to win, fascistic hate cannot be allowed any further success here!
What happened, did someone forget to pay the bills? I, at least, missed TC badly these past few weeks! I was getting worried about if it'd be back at all, but I'm quite glad it is. :D
... On that note, I hadn't made a backup of the database since 2012. I need to correct that. :p
... No exe file? No modding? No way to use overlays, controller remapping programs, etc? Vsync always on? And for me worst of all, borderless fullscreen ONLY?? I have two monitors, that's like the worst idea ever. If you stick to this, MS, I won't be buying and I hope other people don't fall for this either. As much as I like Microsoft's operating systems, they make terrible decisions sometimes with things like Games for Windows Live, and this, hopefully, will be the latest such debacle.
PC games as a closed system with no modding, etc, etc, would be terrible compared to what we have now! This sounds like exactly the kind of PC gaming-destroying, corporate-pushed system that would be disastrous for this industry if it takes off on computers, so it can't be allowed to. That's all really bad stuff. And on top of that, borderless fullscreen only is like the worst idea ever for computer games, for performance, for people with multiple videocards and/or multiple monitors, etc.
So yeah, here's hoping this is the next Games for Windows Live in terms of success. I like some things about Microsoft, such as their operating systems, but they cannot be allowed to destroy the open format system that makes PC gaming great.
Well, after today's primaries it looks like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the definite leaders for the two party nominations.
Note: This is just a random collection of thoughts, not something organized.
On the Democratic side, I support Hillary over Bernie. He's great in a lot of ways, and is definitely best overall on banking, but there are more issues than just that and he is a very one-note candidate. Back last summer I went to Bernie's speech when here was here in Maine (huge crowd!), and it was good, but... he really is so one-note. I have never liked or agreed with the economics-driven-history argument, that is that economics matters more than anything else, and that's what Bernie speeches sound like, everything it the banks' fault and if we fix that everything will be better. I just do not believe that; the banks are one problem, but fixing banks and the economic system won't fix everything, not even close.
And probably even more importantly, Bernie can't win. Yes, some polls show him doing better than Hillary against Republicans, but that is because the Republicans have been hitting her with everything they've got for decades now, while they are being VERY quiet about Bernie, in hopes that Democrats nominate the guy. The attacks against him are easy and would be extremely effective -- he wants to massively raise your taxes, he went to the Soviet Union for his honeymoon, he's a socialist (and socialists ranked below all other terms, including 'atheist', 'muslim', and more, in a poll of whether people would vote for someone who was in various groups!), etc etc. I have relatives in Vermont and apparently Bernie does great constituent services, is at every parade and event, etc, and I can see why he's so popular there, but the whole country isn't Vermont and a Sanders candidacy would probably be disastrous in November. If he could win he'd be a good president, though I think Hillary would probably be just as good overall (better on some issues, worse on others), but how could he win? He calls for a "political revolution", but the numbers of voters in Democratic caucuses and primaries so far this year are apparently below 2008 levels, so he's not matching Obama in that respect. If he COULD get that kind of crowd reaction or more it'd be much better proof of his electability, but it's not there.
For anyone who hadn't realized it already, Scalia's death really highlights how important this election is. If the Republicans stick with refusing to allow a vote, or vote down any and all nominees Obama nominates to the court, this next president will have that choice to make for sure, plus likely more -- three other Supreme Court justices, two liberal and Kennedy, are also 75+ now and could retire or have health problems. The Supreme Court has apparently had a conservative majority for almost 45 years, since the early 1970s, and we can't miss this historic chance to turn that around! It could mean a better country... or a worse one, if a Republican gets into office. Sure, if it's Trump we have no clue who he'd nominate, but they wouldn't be as good as anyone Hillary would nominate, that's for sure.
On the note of Trump, seeing the Republican Party tear itself apart like this has been really interesting. The racist wing of their party is revolting, basically, and is backing Trump even though on so many other issues he goes against Republican party orthodoxy. Can the racist genie that the Republicans have been winning with ever since Nixon started the Southern Strategy be put back in its bottle, and will the racists go back to supporting conventional Republicans again someday, or is a major split in the making? It is horrible to see how far right the Republican party has gone on many issues, but this racists v. ultraconservatives split is a big one. (On that note though, Rubio is VERY conservative. He may be the "establishment" choice, but he's very, VERY far right.)
So yeah, it's been a very interesting election so far, and I'll be following it the whole way for sure. I hope things go well...
It has steadily become clear for all too many kickstarter games that if you've got a developer shorn from the original company and team working on their own promising an unrelated "spiritual successor", you'll get something about as real as a spirit.
This isn't a physical law I'm claiming here. There's some games that actually DO see the light of day, such as Wasteland 2 and Pillars of Eternity. Yet for every project that actually comes out (and those last two to mixed reviews, deserved or not), there's a bunch more that seem to be in "fund us forever" limbo. Think of the sheer number that, frankly, should be DONE by now. We know from experience just how long it takes to make a 2D Megaman (6 on the NES alone) game, but here we are. Some just keep expanding in scope, and as much as I can respect their goals, one wonders if they're ever going to be able to merge all those otherwise completely separate games into one in a seamless way.
Now, I'm not saying none of these games are ever going to come out. I personally am really looking forward to a few. It's just worrying just how many have out and out been cancelled. Unsung Story, for example, is just plain GONE, with everyone's money. Considering that the person responsible for so many extremely good strategy games with amazing stories was behind it, it just makes you wonder. Perhaps we're all just a pack of idiots for ever believing the lie that a single person is responsible for ANY of our favorite games, even if they are the writer/director. Heck, the FF7 creators have said repeatedly they didn't want to even try to remake FF7 unless they could get the whole original creative team together on the project. Now they're doing it anyway, clearly without the whole team, and right out the gate the direction of the project is worrisome.
Some projects just look shady, such as Shenmu 3: Rise of Papyrus. Now, it could have just been an utter lack of a marketting team to advice them on what actually looks "good", but you see the numbers the original two games needed just to get made, and contrast it with what they're actually trying to make the game ON, and you have to wonder just what to expect.
As an aside, as glad as I am when I see some kickstarter promising the same "gameplay style" as a previous series, but not IN that series, there is a part of me that's disappointed. Here you've got a vast series of games spanning decades with a steadily built-up storyline and overall mythos, and bam, you get final confirmation it'll never be "finished", the story is dead in the water, but here's this brand new nearly identical copycat story. I'm not claiming Castlevania or Megaman have the most meaningful stories tackling important issues in the world today, but dangit, I've been with those stories since I was a kid and got kinda caught up in the twists and turns. I wanted to see how it all ended. I wanted to finally get to the final battle against Dracula in 1999 AD. I wanted to see what happened between Megaman and Megaman X. There is a reason Mighty Number 9 wasn't the character they added to Smash Bros. It was Megaman. Even with no future prospects for the series at the moment, people are more invested in Megaman as a character than Mighty Number 9. So, sure, I plan on buying these reinvented series, but it's a shame that we're basically sliding into some alternate reality version of the story, but starting from the beginning. This is a DC reboot, basically.
"Kickstarter", as a concept is really losing a lot of credibility these days. That sucks, because being able to bypass the normal investor method is a powerful tool. And heck, maybe this is just the calm before the storm and we'll see hit after hit come flying out of the flood gates, but until that time, I'm a bit worried.
