Not me. I have to stand by my beliefs and would stall for time, look for another job and quit. That's key, don't quit before you have another job lined up.

Yeah I agree Ben, I mean everybody knows what happens when you're always mouthing off and "keeping it real". Hasn't everybody seen those public service announcements on the Chappelle Show?

Stromprophet: You're pretty delusional, and it shows through what you say : you're trying to change reality to match what you believe is true. Wii is not competing in a different market at all : it's still competing in the videogame market last time I looked. In the living room videogame market to be more precise. And it competes in the age 4-77 for everyone, which you fail to see. You think it's weaker than the other consoles for the age 13-29, but that doesn't mean it doesn't compete in this age too. The other too are more limited, competing only in the 13-29 demographic. You're still stuck in the old game bubble that game developers tried to break for years. For example, you say the "novelty of the motion control is great". No, novelty is not great in itself, that's just elitist gamer's nonsense, like polygon counts and huge environments. You just missed most of the Wiimote's benefits. It shows when you compare to the PS3 controller. You can't understand why a casual would not try getting near a PS3 controller, unlike a wiimote. And this despite it having been explained countless times, which just shows the very concept of the wiimote escapes you completely. Then, like every gamer stuck in these old times, you talk about power, hard drives, ... Or think the sole advantage of the Wii is its low price. So just lowering the prices of other consoles would negate this lone advantage. Of course that's all wrong. You don't even understand these things, you just list lots of powerful thing, and think the more you had, the more you can do more easily. Like talking quad core for a desktop PC is pure nonsense, even more for a game. You talk about this like games were all massively parallell, which is plain wrong. You talk like PC are the defining example for consoles to follow due to its huge power (if you put the price), which is an argument I heard back in 1990, and is still wrong to this day. And no, power has nothing to do with immersion in a game. Nothing at all ! That's wishful thinking, and has be debunked countless times by facts (consoles since NES times). You can be immersed in music or by a book. Immersion is just when a media manage to capture your imagination. All this talk of power is from elitist people, that just don't want normal people to invade 'their' entertainment, that they should be the only one to master, but they need people to come pour money into it. The ultimate goals of videogames is NOT VR, that's just stupid. The ultimate goal of videogames is to entertain people ! That's exactly the behaviour I described, you just completely lost the purpose of videogames, you think "it's about pushing the boundaries of the technology". No it's not. Scientists are there for that. The goal of a console is to push the boundaries of games, which is exactly what the Wii is doing. And most people don't care about technology, especially when they buy a console. That's to play games, not to look at high technology. Anyway, Nintendo is pushing new technology. Motion sensing is newer than false 3D on a 2D screen, which was there way before Sony entered the console market. HD was there too, even if it didn't have the brand name. Nintendo is actually doing the newest things this gen, and pushing the latest technologies (like low power consumption, motion sensing), but you won't admit it, because technology is not even what you want, that's a poor excuse you make for wanting more power. And games are not about realistic environments, they're about entertaining people. Talking about MMORPG, I don't even think these kind of games are a good thing for the bottom line of a console, it would even be dangerous. Anyway, if you want to push the limits of realistic environments, physics, graphics, videogames are NOT what you should use to gauge that. For example, apart from the trees, a game like shiro kishi monogatari for PS3 which isn't even out yet, don't even come close to what I was doing in class in 1994 with a bigger definition ! So please, spare us this BS ! Go work in science, it will be far more rewarding. Games like WoW are not pushing the limits of anything either. Perhaps I'm wrong, what limits is it pushing again ? Games are not what pushed hard drives or online connection, if that's what you think, you're really misguided. You say XBL is number 1 online service, which is just false. Except if you talk about only XB360 consumers. You talk about these services like they're available to anyone having the other consoles, which is plain wrong. You think Nintendo is pushing nothing new or creative, which just shows you have big blinders. You can't see sth new or creative when they put it before your eyes, something that even casuals can do, better. And no, Rogue Squadron, RE and Eternal Darkness didn't push the boundaries of any technology, unless you limit technology to what was available on the consoles they were on (mostly GC). Which would be a big mistake. Besides, I see lots of people spouting around words like AI and physics, which are words that don't mean anything alone. They don't even mean what people use them for. Pushing limits of AI, for me, is to succeed in putting out a perfect neural network. Even a simple neural network is far more advanced than anything needed in a game. As for physics, that's useful in a movie, not in a game. It adds nothing to the experience at least. Even CG in movies don't try to be realistic, as realistic is plain boring (see FF movie).

He wasn't forced to apologize for not liking the system, he was forced to apologize for acting like a complete and total immature moron. If you have an employee say that slams your client like he did, what would you do?

The funny thing is, before he apologized, Wii-haters were trying to talk up how this guy is a "respected designer" etc. Well, he's not anymore. He's now the "the guy who called the Wii a piece of shit," which isn't going to help him much when the Wii does dominate.

That is a broken analogy because art is considered opinion and so is what he said.

Indeed, like I said earlier, this guy is a tool. His masters told him to talk down the Wii, so he did. When it backfired, they told him to apologize, so he did. That's all. Wii has the most mindshare among consumers now. Any company watching its bottom line would be a fool to ignore it. EA was fooling themselves that a large scale backlash on the Wii is due. They tried to trigger it so that they can just go back to focusing on 2 consoles. But with Sony to pad the bottom in terms of consumer perception, Nintendo backlash will have to wait a long long time

I don't believe that for a second.

So what is the screen writer considered as.....just a writer? Why is the Director an artist? We can go on forever with this. Now the director is the writer's tool and the screen play is the actor's tool. So what you are saying is that the dancers and opera singers have no creative input in these works. What about bands that write and perform their own music? Aren't they entertainers and hence not artist? Even if an actor is using work made by someone else, they have to take that work and deliver it with their own style. I don't think anyone else can do what Will Ferrell does, his work is unique. Dave Chapelle is a comedian like Ferrell, but I don't think Ferrell can deliver the same style of comedy as Chapelle. Yes I think entertainers are artists. How can you draw a line between 2 things that are the same? Here's Erik's example: When I look at the Mona Lisa, I don't feel any emotion or gather any ideas. That's just me, I am sure other people do. I still consider it art. When I listen to Vivaldi, I don't get teary. It's still art. Rap is very emotional, it's art, but some would say it's trash. Is it right to consider Picasso's Cubism trash and Renoir's Impressionism art? Art doesn't have to convey any emotion or idea. Art is just someone's creativity realized in a somewhat tangable state. When was the last time you went to a musuem? Next time you go, take a good look at what's in there. Along with the usual paintings and sculptures, there are jewelry, pottery, glass work, wood work, rugs, guns, knight armor, swords, many types of weapons, tools, manusciprts, interior design, architecture, gardens, computers, cars, boat, toys, clothes, anything that was made by a human basically. All I am trying to say that art and entertainment go hand in hand. Art has its hand in everything.

Do you have any evidence to support your theory? If so, I would love to hear it. Somehow, however, I doubt you have any evidence whatsoever because you made that up as you were typing it.