I didn't get owned. He copy pasted Wikipedia!

I still say Yahtzee does not "have an accent", unless you add in the word "English" or maybe "awesome".

Yahtzee has an English accent.

Yahtzee has an awesome accent.

Yahtzee has an understandable accent.

Yahtzee does not just have an accent.

Pointing out that all I had to do to own you was copy-paste from Wikipedia doesn't help your case. 

I'm not entirely sure you're getting just what an accent is.  If Yahtzee has an English accent, then he has an accent.  You can't have an accent that's not an accent.  Or does "accent" exclusively mean "foreign accent" to you? 

Accent just means the way you sound when you talk.  So whatever the 'standard' is of what people are 'supposed' to talk like could be considered "no accent" because it's the default position and "accents" are what differs from it.  That's the only way you could possibly justify a claim that a person does not have an accent IMO. 

Yes, an accent is the way in which you talk. WHEN qualified with another adjective. English accent, posh accent, annoying accent, etc.

When you just say "an accent", it means a foreign accent.

Similarly, when you say somebody has a brain, it doesn't mean that their skull contains a muscle used for thought, because that applies to all humans and quite a few other species. You mean they have a good brain. When it's not qualified, it takes on a certain meaning.

^ Or "an accent" could just mean a strong accent, domestic or foreign. It depends on context.

You're trying to dictate context -- that, when unqualified, "accent" is referring to a foreign accent, and additionally that "foreign" accents in English mean "not of England". Both of these assumptions are not always true, and the second assumption is usually not true. (More native English speakers live in America so you're the foreigner to them.)

And how sure are you that the brain is a muscle? 'Cuz I've got doubts.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_brain_a_muscle

What I mean is that it wasn't even an attempt at disruption because it was doing what the rest of the gaming companies were doing. I just put that poorly.

...

Malstrom was talking about for the Mario series, not other games. In the vein of disruptive innovation for the Martio series, SM64 fits the bill perfectly because no other Mario games before it were like it.

No. He poinst to NSMBWii being disruptive to man other games today, so don't try to change what he means just to call him wrong on some point. Mario 64 was sustaining. He's not saying it's a bad thing (because he made it clear it wasn't). He stated the wrong thing was the direction of the games.

Then how about you point to me where I'm getting this wrong? I'm apparently confused, here.

"Here an interesting way to look at the Mario series which, I believe, has never been done before. Let us place the entire Mario series under the lens of disruption. What will we find?

Donkey Kong- This is the beginning. Let’s move on from here.

Donkey Kong Jr.- Sustaining innovation. It is more of the same.

Donkey Kong 3- I’m going to skip this one.

Mario Brothers- Disruptive innovation. This game was focused on multiplayer which wasn’t normally done at the time. The game did not improve along traditional lines. Mario Brothers had ‘less diversity of levels’ than the Kong games did.

Super Mario Brothers- Disruptive innovation. NES was seen as a generation behind game centric computers at the time. Graphics and more levels were not why Mario sold. (Though, this history has been whitewashed by comparing it only to the Atari Era and not the computers which were where all home gaming was at after the crash. Comparing it to Atari is dumb because Atari came out in the latter seventies, almost ten years prior to the arrival of the NES. This is not more levels of Mario Brothers. This game cannot be seen as a sustaining innovation.)

Super Mario Brothers 2- I’m going to skip this one since there are so many versions of it. But it is sustaining innovation.

Super Mario Brothers 3- More powerups! More levels! Sustaining innovation.

Super Mario World- More powerups! More levels! Sustaining innovation.

Yoshi’s Island- More Yoshi! More levels! Sustaining innovation.

Super Mario 64- Better graphics! More complex gameworld! More complex gameplay! Sustaining innovation.

Super Mario Sunshine- Better graphics! More gameworld! Water pack was adding onto the current gameplay. Sustaining innovation.

Super Mario Galaxy- Better graphics! More gameworld! Space and gravity were added onto the current gameplay. Sustaining innovation (as it is clearly an evolution of Mario 64).

Handheld Mario Games- One mistake game journalists are making is putting any of the handheld Mario games into the main series. Super Mario Land series was always seen as separate. NSMB is also different as it was designed for the handheld. (And this is why Mario 5 is advertised as a successor to Mario 3 and Mario 4 and not as the successor to NSMB DS in Nintendo advertising.) All the handheld Mario games are sustaining innovations. NSMB DS was a sustaining innovation from previous Mario games on handhelds.

Super Mario Brothers 5- Disruptive innovation. Mario 5 goes back almost twenty years towards the gameplay of Super Mario World and Super Mario Brothers 3. The game sheds off the 3d sustaining innovation entirely. However, this is done so Miyamoto can finally make his multiplayer Mario game. Multiplayer is a new value we have never seen in the Mario series before (the versus modes of NSMB DS and Mario 3 don’t count).

Super Mario Galaxy 2- This is more Galaxy levels. It is a clear sustaining innovation.

Keep in mind that I do not mean to imply that sustaining innovation means bad and disruptive innovation means good. Sustaining innovation is always good unless you are overshooting the customer’s needs. What this does show is why Super Mario Brothers 5 is despised and hated by many “hardcore” gamers despite it resembling the golden age of gaming."

Let's take a look at Super Mario Bros. and why it was disruptive. He doesn't outright say what made it disruptive, though. Sure, he says the NES was seen as a generation behind and that graphics and more levels were not why it sold, but those are what didn't make it disruptive. He never said what made it disruptive.

Super Mario 64 had better graphics and more complex gameplay, sure, but it also brought something that wasn't in very many other games, let alone done nearly as well. From Wikipedia: "Super Mario 64 established a new archetype for the genre, much as Super Mario Bros. did for 2-dimensional (2D) sidescrolling platformers. Hailed as "revolutionary", the game left a lasting impression on 3D game design, particularly notable for its use of a dynamic camera system and the implementation of its analog control."

So am I getting this wrong?

It in essence was mainly making the series bigger and better. NSMBWii actually challenged the path the series had been on. One is sustaining and the other is disruptive.

This is off topic, but the continual misspelling of his name as "Maelstrom", which sounds like a name you could give to a video game villain, is a great example of memetic evolution...