James

[quote]One small thing James; Greers comments were not light hearted, They were as terrible as they get.[/quote] [font=arial]I said I don't agree with everything she said, but she was treated very unfairly. She was pointing out that Steve Irwin was an embarassment to various people in Australia and that it's impossible to mention this after he died. So her overall point was that we somehow lose our objectivity when people pass away. Granted, her tone wasn't exactly pleasant, but did you see any of the interviews? They were ripping her apart and misinterpreting her every step of the way. Greer may have been sharp in her comments, but the media were getting right into the gutter in the way they covered it.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']And I think what it boils down to: do you think it's worth trying to see if it's better or worse? I realize you don't favor it all that much for the reasons you've stated before, but do you feel it's an avenue worth exploring for the sake of better education, or the wrong direction altogether?[/quote] [font=arial]Yeah, I do think it's worth trying. At the very least, knowing more about it is a good thing. I suppose that I would never want something to be brought in on the basis of "we'll stop the distractions with this method", because I don't think that has any demonstrated educational value. However, if it's shown that environments can be tailored for individuals' needs (including the male/female division), I think this would be fine - at the very very least, it would be an [i]option[/i] for those parents who choose it. Having that option available is probably not a bad thing.[/font]

[quote]Basically. If you actually, you know, watch the clip (it's on YouTube), then you'll see that the joke is more a jab at the idea that there is an 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' time to make fun of someone's death rather than a joke that out and out mocks Steve Irwin's death. [/quote] [font=arial]I don't always agree with South Park personally, but having said that, I know that its creators don't usually just throw something shocking on the screen for shock's sake. Usually there is a fundamental message behind the shock. In some cases, the creators are simply saying "don't take the world so seriously". There's often this idea that we can't laugh about death or that when someone dies, they are immune from criticism and they can't be the object of fun. I mean, sure...it would be awful to make jokes in front of Steve's family or something. On the other hand, Steve Irwin was often made fun of while he was alive - why should this change now that he's dead? I remember when Channel Nine here in Australia interviewed Germaine Greer about his death - she actually had the guts to criticise elements of his life. Granted, I don't entirely agree with her, but the way she was treated was disgusting. She rightly made the point that just because someone's dead doesn't mean they should be immune from [i]any[/i] kind of scrutiny, no matter how lighthearted. I haven't yet seen this clip, but my comments here aren't specifically an endorsement of it - I'm just saying that in general, we usually need to step back and look at the broader picture.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']I agree with you here, however, I think learning to deal with the other sex (which is basically the only thing that is being removed from the learning environment) can be achieved through other places/things/people than just school. There are other activities outside of school people can focus on. And I remember (don't quote me, but I swear it was recent) that although people seem to be getting smarter, the new generation (after the peak of IQ kids, lol) of kids are actually scoring lower on IQs.[/quote] [font=arial]Yeah I think you have a reasonable point here. This also depends on school. I think the optimal mix might even be segregated classrooms for most classes, but then having times where students need to do joint projects and things like that - perhaps this would help to address the balancing problems of a segregated classroom situation. As I said before, I don't deny that there are differences between males and females and that a gender segregated system has its benefits...I am just bringing up various possibilites and I think it's worth considering the consequences (be they positive or negative). I suppose that is something which will continue to be researched in the future.[/font] [quote name='AzureWolf']Two things: I didn't mean you directly, and I could have worded that better. I meant, you can't really dismiss something you have no knowledge of (i.e., segregated schooling) simply because you are only familiar with something else. Like, saying black is black even though you've never seen white. [/quote] [font=arial]Okay, no worries. :catgirl: Basically I agree with that statement - this is true for a variety of different discussions, too. Dismissing something without having considered it (or without having some knowledge or experience of it) can be a problem.[/font] [quote]It was an example used to illustrate a scientific point. We can see *directly* that girls develop fine-motor skills (i.e., dexterity, subtle hand movements) faster/earlier than boys, while boys develop gross-motor (i.e., running, tumbling) skills faster/earlier. These can be seen directly, but its long-term effects, although well documented, are not as easy to explain (hence the length of this thread). The *analogy* - not analysis - works in this regard, IMO. [/quote] [font=arial]I think that mentioning the longterm effects is important, because there is also very little information about the longterm effects of having entirely segregated classes throughout one's school career. So, you know, we're really dealing with a series of unknowns anyway - it will, as always, come down to the choice parents make. It will be the parent who will probably have to address any lack of balance that their child faces in such an environment. I think that your analogy (which I would also call an analysis of the situation) was problematic because you were bringing up red herrings - you were talking about teaching completely different subjects to males and females; there was no indication that the same subjects could be taught, but there might be a different emphasis for each group. It's a worthwhile qualification to make.[/font] [quote]You can see my point by taking a very young boy and a very young girl and enrolling them in a knitting class and a gymnastics class. The girl will most likely have trouble with gymnastics at first, while the boy will be frustrated with knitting. Through various complicated social and psychological factors (from Adler's inferiority complex all the way to spiral dynamics), the two will switch roles in terms of proficiency. This would NOT be the case if you took them later in life, like after the age of five, but the significance of this difference still remains relevant to this discussion (see below).[/quote] [font=arial]That is fine in and of itself...but the key word here is "most likely". In truth, we are talking about vast generalizations and assumptions of ability without any objective criteria - I suppose that, more than anything, is an issue I would raise with this system of education. When you have some girls who are better at gynmastics and some boys who are hopeless with it, you still have a reality where every individual is different - and therefore, I think it is difficult to model an entire education system around this principle. So, yes, I would say take it into consideration and perhaps utilize gender segregation (or the concept of it) under certain circumstances. However, modeling an entire system on what is still quite a vague system of assumptions is probably not the wisest path, in my humble opinion.[/font] [quote]I don't recall seeing anything about boys and girls learning different things. Approaching things differently - yes - but not learning different things. I think that's what the primary confusion is about.[/quote] [font=arial]I think it's just the way it was worded and the choice of subjects, haha. The implication was that boys are good at one thing, girls are good at another and it's as simple as that - obviously a course structure couldn't be based on that. I see what you're saying now though that it's been clarified.[/font] [quote name='AzureWolf']I wouldn't call it arbitrary, as it is rooted in statistics...[/quote] [font=arial]It's still arbitrary - you're still asking the question "how long is a piece of string", essentially. Gender division is a nice idea but it's also very general and if taken on its own, represents a dismissal of more fundamental learning patterns (of individual students). Perhaps if gender division were used in conjunction with co-ed programs and with an acnkowledgement of individual learning needs, it would be the best solution. But then it comes back to funding and staffing and all of those things. So it's an issue that probably goes around in circles forever with all the demands related to it.[/font] [quote] Oh, and yeah, about that article CHW posted: boys already don't seem to conform to the teaching system in the first place. Also, if you watch children play (boys and girls separately), you'll notice the school system reflects that of what the girls do more than what boys do in their games (like the rules used. If you want elaboration, just ask).[/quote] [font=arial]I think there's some truth to that, but there's also a lot of convention involved. [/font]

[font=arial]I think there's plenty of evidence to support that concept, not just in the US but over here in Australia as well. This is one of the principle reasons why there are gender-segregated schools in the first place. The only question is whether or not parents feel that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I suppose that's where it's good to have choice in the school system, as a parent.[/font]

[quote=azurewolf]One last point: keeping everyone together is NOT optimal in any way. it's just easier. Teaching everyone in the same fashion when clearly everyone is different does not work the best. However, addressing predispositions is a great start in optimizing the learning environment in a practical way. [/quote] [font=arial]I thought I'd address this one first. My answer is simple: bingo. I am definitely not promoting a "one size fits all" approach. I am simply pointing out that creating subdivisions based on gender is not only somewhat arbitrary, but it puts students in an environment that is contrary to the idea of preparing them for the big bad world, so to speak. If school is designed to improve childrens' problem-solving, communication and interpersonal skills...surely creating generalized divisions isn't going to help that. On the other hand, I think everyone has to acknowledge that each individual student has different learning needs. Unfortunately most schools don't have the resources to deal with students on that basis all the time - that's why some schools have special programs for students with particular learning requirements. [/font] [quote name='azurewolf']Yes, there will be problems with this method, but there are problems with having boys and girls together - if you can't see that, then you are just going on blind faith. But there's a good chance that the problems might be less or they are less severe when you separate boys and girls. Are you going to force a boy to learn to knit even though he's not physically capable of doing so? Are you going to make girls run long distances when they haven't developed the stamina? No.[/quote] [font=arial]I'm going on blind faith? Thanks. lol Seriously though, I'm obviously not going on blind faith. That's not really a fair comment to make, lol. I've obviously put thought into the matter and given reasons to support my opinion - I haven't just said "OMG, boys need to mix with girls cuz its better!!!" I've never met a boy who is physically incapable of knitting, or a girl who doesn't have the stamina to run as far as a boy. That's an incredibly old-fashioned (and very out-moded) analysis. Of course there are differences between the genders, I think everyone would agree with that. But we don't live in a world where women need to learn sewing and men need to learn how to hunt wild boar - men and women need to have a diverse range of options and they need to be able to compete with each other as much as possible. I'm certainly far from an expert when it comes to education and I do recognize that there are subtle differences between men and women. But the idea that we need to have completely seperate classes (and entire subjects) for each gender is a concept that went out with the ark. Perhaps educators might want to focus on the more complex aspects of learning environments and learning habits - it's fine to say that all girls concentrate better than boys, but what about those who don't? You know? It's still very arbitrary and general. I think some (not necessarily you, Azure) have the impression that it's the educational silver bullet. My only message is that people tend to be more complex than their gender, especially when it comes to education.[/font]

[quote name='sandy']There's actually a similar "experiment" going on in a Finnish school. In that school, girls and boys attend to separate classes for the first two grades, and then get melted into mixed classes. Everybody goes to the same school, however, and meets each other at breaks.[/quote] [font=arial]This is probably a good compromise, for pure interest's sake. But as mentioned, I don't think it's reasonable (or desirable) to create a completely artificial environment where the two genders do not mix. As I said earlier, there's a strong possibility that bad habits are further compounded in early life by this - if you've only ever dealt with your own gender in study for years, how are you going to cope on a group project in University that involves females? And how are you going to handle working with females on a day-to-day basis? Males and females do have different learning habits, but this is an over-simplification in my opinion. Each [i]individual[/i] also has different learning habits - so dividing up a classroom based on arbitrary boundaries (such as gender) seems like a very superficial exercise. Surely the better solution is to identify the learning needs of the individual and to divide classes based on this criterion (that is, if classes are to be divided at all). Children that have particular learning needs or who aren't keeping up need to be identified and looked after by teachers...creating arbitrary sub-divisions probably won't tackle that problem.[/font]

[font=arial]The last game I bought was Dead Rising. I haven't really played very much of it yet though, as my brother and sister have been hogging the Xbox. But what I [i]have[/i] played has been great...I'm surprised someone didn't make this game sooner! I swear it's yet another idea Capcom stole from me (and probably plenty of other Dawn of the Dead fans).[/font]

[font=arial]So what about gay students? Won't they be even more distracted than before? No matter what, someone will be distracted! Haha. I just think it's a pointless idea. If you are too distracted by someone to work...then that's going to be an issue for you for life, whether or not you're a student. When people move into full time work, they have to be capable of putting personal issues behind them in order to be professional. If you're so out of control that you can't even pay attention because someone else is in the room, that's a problem. So I agree, what better way to prepare people for the workforce by engaging them in such conditions during study? Besides, in general, men and women have to deal with each other. It makes no sense to create an artificial environment that isn't natural in the first place, I think. Learning to respect one another and deal with someone of the other gender is something that's worth learning from a very young age.[/font]

[font=arial]I'm actually not sure what the technical reason is for these types of auto-spammers, but yes, they are on the increase. Apparently they are now finding ways around vB's regular security measures. Again, I have no idea how they achieve this, but somehow they manage. I'll have a talk with Justin about it as soon as possible to see what we can do. Luckily when we take some action against these bots, things calm down again...so hopefully this isn't going to be a continual severe problem.[/font]

[font=arial]I'm hoping Twilight Princess offers those moments. Considering how big the game apparently is and how long it's been in development...I'm certainly hoping for something like that. I'm also definitely hoping for the game on Virtual Console...that would be great, short of a full remake with new controls (which I doubt would ever happen, but I can dream). I'd forgotten about that pagoda too, that was great. There were plenty of moments like that, where you feel that the world is at your feet and that so many things are going on that aren't always visible to you. I believe they made a sequel on N64 but I haven't played it. It looked like some kind of platformer with RPG elements (much like Goemon 5 itself), but it was a kind of 2.5D game I think...has anyone played that one? I'm not sure if it's worth looking into at all.[/font]

[font=arial]As has been said, activity changes all the time. Some months are inexplicably less active than others...and sometimes when we expect the place to be quiet, the activity skyrockets. That's just the nature of a message board.[/font]

[QUOTE=Zidargh] 2.)There were these moments throughout the game where I felt at utter peace for some reason. Just before you fight the first Impact battle, or that moment where some Tea girl got kidnapped across a bridge or something and you're just left with utter silence besides the wind and that massive landscape. [/QUOTE] [font=arial]Yes! This is something I've always felt and had difficulty describing it. There is something about Mystical Ninja that makes the game somehow feel alive...it's almost completely intangible. And I think you've hit the nail on the head there - it's those moments of complete and utter silence. There were times in the game where I had this odd feeling, like the world around me is absolutely massive and full of things that are unrelated to the main game itself. In this sense the game doesn't at all feel linear...in a way it almost feels more open than a game like GTA. I also really like the surprises. It was a while since I've played, but do you remember that village up in the mountains, where it snows? And the villagers tell you about local legends and give you some history on their town? I found all that stuff really wonderful - every town had its own feel and the game somehow had a very warm and inviting quality to it. It definitely created an emotional response. I think this is why Mystical Ninja is one of my favourite N64 games; it somehow creates a balance that feels extremely inviting and friendly, without being overtly so. Even now I still have trouble describing that feeling and why it exists. As for your offer about sending the game, thank you very much...but I haven't yet looked for the game at my parents' house. I'll see if I can find it and if I can't, I might buy your copy from you or something. Ideally I'd love it if Mystical Ninja were offered on the Wii Virtual Console...that'd [i]really[/i] make me want the system sooner, lol.[/font] [quote]Like I've been saying, its impact was due to its presentation. It's a classic largely because of the presentation, not story or characters, especially considering that Final Fantasy VI shats all over it in those areas yet we don't see people flocking to FFVI as much as we do VII, lol. The reason people were attracted to FFVII in the first place was because it was the first true cinematic RPG. It played like a movie, right down to camerawork.[/quote] [font=arial]That's true, though I'd refer back to Charles' post when it comes to characters. His answer is what I would like to have written, haha. Regardless of the reasons, it was a game that attracted many. It's definitely a classic.[/font]

[quote name='Kenshin DX']Are you refering to the N64 game?[/quote] [font=arial]Yep. It was one of my favorite third party games on N64. It had certain elements that weren't great, but overall I think it was a very unique and enjoyable game. I need to go and find out where it is, actually. I think it's still at my parents' house somewhere...hopefully it hasn't been lost. :animesigh [/font]

[QUOTE=Charles] It's just a shame that so much of the story was poorly translated and nearly incoherent to really be effective.[/QUOTE] [font=arial]I agree with your post - you took the words from my mouth. The big issue was how the story was conveyed. Luckily the version we received had been cleaned up quite a bit, which probably explains why some PAL gamers have a more positive view of the game. Nobody answered my Mystical Ninja question yet. :animeswea [/font]

[font=arial]I personally feel that the sales actually speak a lot with this sort of thing. High sales do not always make a good game, but high sales indicate popularity. Games that have been immensely popular (and have influenced many others), could surely be defined as "classics". So I suppose that would be my angle if I were talking to someone who simply disliked FFVII. I actually haven't played a Final Fantasy game for a long time though...the last one I played was FFX, which I felt was average (loved the battle system, disliked the characters and story). FFX-2 seemed very odd, but I haven't played it...I'm really not sure if I'd enjoy it more than the original or not. In terms of other retro classics, I wonder if Mystical Ninja (Goemon 5) could be included here. I know a few of you are familiar with that game - who else has played it and what are some of your fond memories?[/font]

[font=arial]I think you're essentially right, Alex. But not everything is a complex character study. When I first played Final Fantasy VII, I definitely noticed flaws. But the game had its charm - there were subtler reasons to form an attachment to the characters...simpler reasons. I think that nostalgia tends to cloud judgement, which is why people tend to go back and re-play a game and realize "Hey, this isn't as good as I remember". So that whole aspect is definitely true On the other hand, Final Fantasy VII is a classic for more reasons than its story alone.[/font]

[font=arial]I don't think it's unusual that you had such an emotional response to FFVII, Zid. I certainly did. And so did millions of others. That doesn't make us crazy, it simply means that the game did something right. I would agree that Final Fantasy VII isn't the [i]best[/i] RPG, but it's certainly a great one. Despite any perceived loopholes in plot, the story was nevertheless good enough to push the game along (I certainly never felt bored by the game's plot, which is not something I can say for various other games). Gameplay-wise...well, it was a fairly basic game. It didn't re-invent the wheel. But even some of the greatest RPGs of all time have been games that haven't re-invented the wheel either. A lot of the game's appeal was related to presentation, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. These aspects haven't aged well, but I think if one ignores the work and artistry that went into FFVII...it's kind of a shame, especially given the game's impact on RPGs in general. As for defending characters...I agree with Dagger. It's an emotional thing. Final Fantasy VII can objectively be looked at for its achievements, but character preferences are largely personal. Some people really loved Aeris, but I was always annoyed by her...in fact, she was one of my most disliked characters in the game. lol[/font]

[font=arial]This situation reminds me of Dragon Quest. The characters in these games are usually very stereotypical in one sense or another...and the story always seems to be pretty cliche. Despite that, the Dragon Quest series is the most popular RPG in Japan. I think it is obvious that Final Fantasy VII's character underpinnings were highly cliche (I always thought Aeris was a very typical anime-esque character in pretty much everything she did). But it's kind of like the complaint some have had about Zelda games, in the sense that sometimes people talk about Zelda games as having had a very light story, or not being as deep as other games. That doesn't really take away from the impact the games have had, though. Some games just don't age well though. Final Fantasy VII is unfortunately one of them, although its achievements are no less impressive, viewed in context. I also really regret not buying SSBM. I always enjoyed that game, although I only ever rented it now and again. I should probably buy it when I get around to it.[/font]

[font=arial]I warned you, Alex. I discussed this thread with Desbreko and he agreed with what I was saying - you need to reconsider the way you talk to people. In particular, you need to seriously rethink your debating tactics. lol Let's keep the thread moving, people.[/font]

[quote]That's the thing, James. You haven't been making any points for a while now. You kept trying to come back to "change is change." That got killed pretty quickly when one points to the types of changes here. [/quote] [font=arial]I actually didn't keep coming back to "change is change". This is an example of misinterpretation. I made a clear distinction about the types of change we were discussing...I then made a general point about change. This quote only demonstrates that you either ignored my comments, or you glossed over them in your rush to respond.[/font] [quote]You've tried to say I'm arguing semantics when clearly you've just been ignoring critically important distinctions for whatever reason. [/quote] [font=arial]Not at all. Again, re-read my comments - I have frequently been making clear distinctions that you have been ignoring. I even attached examples to those distinctions. [/font] [quote]You said I was taking quotes out of context, and then I showed you how the context is no different today. You told me about how it was so plausible to assume a "significantly more powerful system" and then I produced the quotes and interviews from Iwata & CO that directly contradict any such assumptions.[/quote] [font=arial]The context [i]is[/i] different today. We were talking about dumping existing code and building a [i]new[/i] game for a [i]new[/i] system. This was also being said at a time when specifications were unknown - we were told they would be modest in comparison to other new platforms, but nobody knew we were dealing with what is essentially a modified GameCube. So the context has absolutely changed and your quote, nor any of your further remarks, took this into account.[/font] [quote]You said that WiiTP is being treated better than other ports, but that's a complete lie by reading about three other ports and I listed them and the improvements (Madden 07, Marvel UA, and Far Cry). [/quote] [font=arial]It [i]is[/i] being treated better than other ports in general, lol. I never said it was being treated better than those specific games - I was referring to ports in general. As far as how it compares to those games in terms of porting...I think it's still on the same level. So there's no issue there whatsoever.[/font] [quote]You tried to come back to how the Wiimote is a fundamental change to play control. That just got killed with nails in the coffin, and I provided examples of undeniable fundamental changes to play control to support what I was saying, and showed the major differences between the true and most important fundamental play control changes of the past twenty years (SMB and Super Mario 64 in particular) and what WiiTP is shaping up to be. [/quote] [font=arial]But yet again, you've gone off on a tangent that nobody but yourself is discussing, lol. This has nothing to do with how Super Mario 64 or any game impacts on game control in general - it has [i]nothing[/i] to do with making comparisons to control changes over the last twenty years. For you to even follow that line of thinking suggests that you've completely glossed over what's been posted. What is being said is that Twilight Princess on Wii has a fundamentally different control system to the GameCube version - this is the [i]only[/i] comparison that is being made. Your examples are redundant because you are arguing a point that nobody else has raised, lol. So, seriously...something is going wrong there. You either need to read our posts more carefully, or you need to make sure that you're picking up on the right points. I'm honestly not going to keep going over this. Either move on with the discussion or don't post at all - both Desbreko [i]and[/i] myself are tired of the constant tangents and misinterpretations. Moving on with the discussion and keeping the thread on track are not an option, so this part of the discussion ends here. lol[/font]

[quote]And anyway, your method of reply should be the same as before: sniping in one or two little remarks about how I have an "inaccurate view" or that I don't know what I'm talking about, or that I'm looking to expose something sinister, or that I'm being unfair, or whatever other lame and misguided accusations you've been trying to throw at me and never actually addressing my points in any real, meaningful way. [/quote] [font=arial]I'll only say this once. [i]Do not[/i] accuse me of "sniping" or not addressing your points. You have done that to me consistently throughout this thread. Secondly, you [i]have[/i] been attempting to spin everything in a negative direction due to your personal view; there's a lot of justification going on here, lol. Moreover...you have frequently been guilty of either not addressing my points, or running off on vague tangents that don't actually take issue with any of the fundamental points I have been making. This is not a good style of debate and it's [i]certainly[/i] not a good idea to go on the offensive about it with me, lol. As far as telling you that you don't know what you're talking about...yes, I've corrected you about some of your misconceptions related to game development process. In some cases there [i]were[/i] misconceptions that I corrected. It was necessary to make those corrections in order to ensure that the conversation was being based on accurate information - I'm not going to have a debate that isn't grounded on a factual basis. It's as simple as that. And to be serious, there's only so much hair-splitting and debating over word definitions that one can do before the entire thread stagnates and moves away from its original purpose - this is especially true when the original comments are deliberately or accidentally misinterpreted on a regular basis. I honestly suggest going back and re-reading my posts. If I've somehow not made something clear, I am more than happy to clarify my position on anything I've said. But when you constantly bring up red-herrings and quotes that are taken out of context...it's a consistent demonstration of poor form. You aren't in a position to accuse anyone else of that, I assure you. You're more than welcome to discuss the issues at hand, but those kind of tactics just aren't welcome - and if you are going to continue to use them, you'll be excluded from the thread.[/font]

[font=arial]I just don't have as much free time as Papa Smurf, so I can't answer every single point, but I can probably answer a few. This one stood out to me though:[/font] [quote]That strictly physical change is not fundamental. It's altering a window-dressing. You're still taking all the time that you want to kill regular ranged and stationary enemies. There's still zero urgency. Plus, I sincerely doubt aiming with the bow is going to require such a huge change in how you move. Regular people won't be using their entire arms. Regular people will probably be barely using their forearms. The Wiimote is all about the wrist action...like in Charles' banner. [/quote] [font=arial]Even if you only use your wrists, the fact remains...control has been fundamentally changed. Even playing a game like Duck Hunt would be quite different if you wanted to use an analog stick, versus some sort of freehand control (whether that is a light gun or something else entirely). Moving your hand to aim is very different from only moving your thumb. Believe me, this will make a major difference to how the game feels and in turn, how the player approaches certain situations. At the end of the day though, this point can only really be expressed if you try the game yourself - I think the point will become clearer at that stage, if it isn't already. In terms of the fundamental aspect of it, well...game control is a fundamental of any game. Game control is what dictates how you interact with the environment or the character - changing that control equates to changing one fundamental element of the game.[/font]

[font=arial]Wow, what a waste of space this thread has become. Closing time, methinks.[/font]

[font=arial]If you can play existing game systems, I think if anything, you'll have an easier time with Wii (because there are plenty of games on the system that won't even require the nunchuk...so you won't need to constantly use the analog stick all the time, nor will you have to press a lot of buttons). On the question of price, I think it depends. If you are planning on getting a Wii anyway, TP is a good investment. But if you're on the fence about Wii, I doubt TP alone is going to be enough to convince you to buy the system (especially if you already own a GameCube - in that case I definitely agree that the price is too much of a factor).[/font]