I decided to mess around with the 3DS camera and found the setting that let you identify QR Codes.  It's pretty fun.  Give it a try!


Use this one from the Mii channel:


And of course the best QR Code ever...

After hearing about how Nintendo is\was a supporter of the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA), I decided I really needed to write to the company.  I wanted to know it's official stance on the legislature as well as to express my personal concerns about the bill itself.

For those who do not know what SOPA is (or PIPA) please refer to this:
Passing This Along (re: Internet Censorship & Smash Videos)

For those who wish to see the letter I wrote, you can view a copy of it below.

--------------------------

December 1, 2011

To Whom It May Concern:

I recently heard of a legislative bill called Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and how it affects perhaps the entire entertainment industry, specifically in regards to your company Nintendo Co., Ltd.  Looking into the bill I learned that the bill was written to strip Americans of their online freedoms and to put power into the hands of the U.S. government to police the entire internet and to criminalize users at whim.  I am writing this letter today as a concerned customer and long-time supporter of Nintendo Co., Ltd.  I have heard that Nintendo is a bold supporter of SOPA and this letter is being sent as an official inquiry as to where Nintendo stands with this legislation.

I have stood behind Nintendo since the early days all the way to the launch of the 3DS, becoming an "Ambassador" and holding firm that the company I support also supports my ideals and concerns in return.  If Nintendo does in fact support SOPA (or the Protect IP Act) I urge the company to reconsider it's stance for the sake of customers with the same views as I now express.

If I have to make a choice to support Nintendo or my freedom I will have to side with freedom.

I actually cringe at the thought when a game boasts "50 to 100 hours" of play [1], because let's face it we all know it's not gonna be 50 to 100 hours of heart-stopping excitement.  Even if we can all agree there's a happy medium, I prefer 'fun' over 'length', especially when a game has to be artificially expanded.



I didn't have much in the way of high expectations when I heard another Zelda was coming out on the Wii since I didn't really enjoy Twilight Princess.  I'm not saying it was a bad game in any way, I just thought the level of fun I had with the game really didn't match the length I had to put into playing it.

I pretty much expected the same thing from Skyward Sword considering this has been the case with every Zelda game since Ocarina of Time.

In a way I was right - I thought the beginning was slow and uneventful for way too long.  There were some new mechanics to the game that I enjoyed playing around with during this part to help ease the pace.  I also give Skyward Sword props for not having a mandatory Goat Herding mini-game this time around.



I like to think of the beginning as an "interactive opening cinematic" - one which takes about an hour to progress through.  (The actual opening cinematic is pretty cool, and much less of a time-eater).  After the slow start, there's a turning point in the plot where you finally realize that the game has begun.  It wouldn't really be a spoiler to talk about the storyline up to this point, but it's not really necessary to mention anything anyway.

After this point I played through the game for several more hours only to realize that I had only come to the first 'dungeon' in the game.  The first.  This probably paints a good idea as to the scope of this game.  It was about here that I decided I should take a lunch break.  When I got back into the game, sure enough it took several more hours of traversing through the world, fighting enemies and talking to a variety of denizens just to... get to the second dungeon.  The second dungeon.  This is where I took a break to go make some dinner (Indian lentils, aloo mattar, and spiced rice).  I started feeling like Bastian Bux of the Never Ending Story...


"Chapter 2 took me half a year to read..."

Is this game long?  It's certainly feels like it.  Is it too long?  Not really.  Yes the 'interactive opening cinematic' felt like forever, but the pacing is decent and the play is entertaining.  I have very few qualms about this game.  In fact...

This could very well be the best Zelda game in the series.

As much as I love The Wind Waker, I have to admit that Skyward Sword is just as good in its own way and arguably a better game overall.

------------------
TL;DR:
If I can stand playing a Zelda game for 12 hours so far, it's probably an amazing game.

Kirby's Epic Yarn
Release Date: Oct. 17th 2010
t1mmy wins Maverick Mayhem III on Oct. 16th 2010



Kirby's Return to Dreamland
Release Date: Oct. 24th 2011
t1mmy wins Best Bout 4 on Oct. 15th, 2011

...

Coincidence? :3

One is not judged a hero by strength, talents or abilities but rather by one's actions.



What good is it to be strong but lack tenacity?  To wield power, but hold no resolve?  To be capable of great things, but to cower away from taking proper action?  How can one rule over others in the name of authority when one cannot even command oneself?



And what of the wise?  Knowledge, reasoning, intuition - these are mere ideas; intangibles that hold no solid merit.  As incorporeal as thought, knowledge is simply the fuel of true wisdom and that fuel requires a spark, a galvanizing force to put into motion the otherwise inert effervescence.



True courage comes from intent and that intent is what pushes us forth into action.  From our actions we show our true power and utilize our wisdom.  It is our actions that others perceive and what defines us, it is who we are.  It is our courage that pushes us beyond our realm of safety and takes us to great places to do great things.  It is what enables us to stand strong in the face of adversity and to overcome challenges from that which we would otherwise be overtaken.

Remember the next time you stand before the visage of doubt, fear, or indecision, remember what you believe in; remember your true intentions.  Hold onto that belief - stand strong, take action!

Click for Official Webpage






"Kirby Wii" has been retitled "Kirby's Return to Dreamland".
The official launch date is October 24th, 2011. So mark your calenders!

Here are some awesome links to click on:

Kirby's Return to Dreamland at Nintendo.com
Wikipedia Entry
Gamespot "Return to Dreamland Preview"

I'm happy to see a lot of you taking interest in discussing the rules - it shows there are dedicated players who are invested in the thriving community of Brawl.

Taking into consideration the retorts given in t0mmy's recent blog about stalling\camping\scrooging\etc. in a tournament scene with Meta Knight banned, I wanted to address the concerns of those who did not seem to fully agree with what he was saying.

Applejack wrote:
Removing the % based tie-breaker wouldn't stop any of those things. They'd just make it so the person with the higher percent does it instead of the person with the lower percent

This seems to be an apathetic argument in the sense that you want it to seem as if getting rid of the rule is pointless, futile, or perhaps less effective.  Consider this:

If a rule was created that is not in the game and it has just as much of an effect as not having it, does that not entail that we should get rid of said rule?  In this regard we would have a more concise and manageable set of rules.

If you feel that without this extra rule, the game would be 'worse' because the guy with more damage is playing defensive\campy, then I would like to hear some evidence to support why this is any worse than the guy with less damage playing defensive\campy?  Additionally, you do realize that someone that is already at high percents on their last stock will already be inclined to play more 'safely' usually to the point of defensive\campy strategies?

If the overall idea is to pinpoint the motivations behind defensive\campy gameplay and remove such motivations from the players, why would we want to add a rule that can give the player with less damage as much (or more) reason to play defensive\campy as well as the guy who has more damage?  Unless the logic behind it is to make sure everyone plays more defensive\campy and to promote stalling out games, then I fail to see the reasoning behind this.

Almo wrote:
You are forcing the winning player to approach, and trying to discourage timeouts

First of all, damage does not equate to 'winning'.  For example, you can see this in game 5 of Loser's Finals of this tournament set.  The only lead any player can attain is with a stock lead - declaring anyone else a winner or a loser based on any other means is theoretical and subjective if not completely irrational.

As for 'trying to discourage timeouts', that's not necessarily the case.  It's more accurate to say 'trying not to encourage timeouts'.  The game already has rules and mechanics set in place, if we add an out-of-game ruling and that results in an increase in stalling\timeouts we must ask ourselves: 'do we want an increase in stalling\timeouts or do we want to have the normal amount?  If we want an increase then by all means add rules to increase the stalling and timeouts seen.  If we do not want to see an increase - if we want to see the game played normally - then we should not be using a rule to increase stalling\timeouts.

Almo wrote:
the rule to accommodate a losing player when the player winning got into a winning position based on how he played in the match?

I do not want to see a rule to accomodate a losing player, in fact I do not want to see any superflourous rules added at all.  The 'losing player' is obviously the one with fewer stocks, and should the timer expire the game will rightfully give the win to the player with more stocks.

This is why the %-based tie breaking rule should not be a standard in tournament play.  It is an archic, unnecessary ruling that alters the winner\loser of a match.

Almo wrote:
Eliminating the %-based rule will just encourage the losing player to avoid all conflict until the situation is reset in a 1 stock rematch.

It is much more difficult for someone to avoid losing a stock at higher percents than it is at low percents, so this isn't as big of an issue as it is for motivating someone with lower percents to run away.  Additionally, the best some can hope for with the %-based rule gone is a 1-stock rematch, whereas with the rule the guy who is playing gay is rewarded as the winner of the Game.

- - -

t0mmy wrote:
I'm in favor of the tournament rule "Play the game" which solves nearly every problem because the game runs just fine by itself.

Just to let you all know, I'm not in favor of banning Meta Knight and never have been.

Some of you might think it's because I play as Meta Knight, but anyone who knows me knows that's not the type of person I am.  I'm against the ban because I honestly don't see Meta Knight as 'broken' nor do I see him as some unstoppable force.  I've looked very deeply at both sides of the argument (see my group: (AiB) Meta Knight Ban Research) and while I see a lot of evidence that Meta Knight is a very good character, I have yet to be convinced that he's ban worthy.

However...

I'm a T.O. as much as I am a rules-maker and a competitive player.  I see and understand that there's a large number of players out there who want to see Meta Knight banned.  As a TO, I have learned that you listen to your players; tournaments are nothing without the attendees and the attendees depend on having a trustworthy and understanding organizer.  In this regard, I have no qualms in banning any character (or implementing any other rule for that matter).

I felt like writing this to help everyone understand my reasoning and thoughts since I'm part of the Unity Ruleset Commitee and hope this helps shed light on the thoughts and discussions that go on back there.

Edit:
TL;DR

I'm against banning Meta Knight.
I didn't vote in favor of banning Meta Knight.
As a TO I set aside my own bias and listen to my attendees for each tournament I run.

Anyone who has been on AiB or SWF for the last week has seen a lot of talk about changing the rules of Brawl so that the game is more fast-paced and exciting.  This has become even more apparent with exposure to EVO's stream from last weekend and will likely continue as we approach Apex 2012.

This is a sign that the community is aware that something is not comfortable with the current rules that we see at the usual tournaments.  If there are problems present, that means we must identify the underlying cause, and then find a solution.

Complaint #1: "Boring" Game-play
No one wants to see Meta Knight tornado someone once and then run to the edge and plank for 8-minute, thereby being rewarded a win.
  Root Cause: The motivation to play campy\stall is rewarding a win through %-based tie-breaking.
  Solution: Repeal the ruling for %-based wins.  If a player has to actually KO the opponent they will at least have earned their lead, and this will also motivate aggressive tactics.

Complaint #2: Stalling\Time-Outs
Even if someone has a stock lead, they can still run the clock and try to win by a time-out.
  Root Cause: The lower the timer the more likely it is for the player to rationalize stalling in order to win (or tie), especially if it seems more feasible to stall out the clock than to KO the opponent.
  Solution: At the very least a 10-minute timer should be used as a minimum setting, but getting rid of the timer altogether would prevent anyone from stalling.  Some players prefer the clock (to keep track of Wario's D-special).  A compromise can be reached to set the clock to 99:00 minutes.

Complaint #3: Games take too long
Here's an interesting comparison:

SSFIV:AE Evo 2011 Grand Finals
Fuudo vs. Latif
7 Rounds total:
288.seconds (in-game)
Round 1:
@24.s, 1-0, Fuudo (24.s)
@44.s, 2-0, Fuudo (20.s)
Round 2:
@83.s, 1-0, Fuudo (39.s)
@124.s, 2-0, Fuudo (41.s)
Round3:
@168.s, 1-0, Fuudo (44.s)
@235.s, 1-1, Latiff (67.s)
@280.s, 2-1, Fuudo (45.s)


Now look at the following comparisons in Smash:

Brawl Grand Finals - Genesis 2
M2K (MK) vs. Ally (Snake)
Round 1:
@80.s, 1st KO, M2K's stock (80.s)
@120.s, 2nd KO, Ally's stock (40.s)
@212.s, 3rd KO, M2K's stock (92.s)
@220.s, 4th KO, Ally's stock (8.s)
@290.s, Winning KO, Ally's stock (70.s)

As you can see, it isn't necessarily that Smash is 'too slow', but rather that Stocks in Smash are about equivalent to Energy Bars in SF4.  This means that one Round of Smash is equivalent to an entire Set in SF4.

So the question comes down to this:
Does the Smash community want faster games?

1-Stock, Best of 3 (Finals Best of 5)
Pros: Planking\Scrooging\Stalling is effectively eliminated (assuming the %-based tie-breaker is no longer used).  Games are much quicker-paced.  Pokemon Trainer can effectively 'main' one Pokemon.  Zero Suit Samus gets a slight buff.
Cons: Lucario only gets Aura bonuses from damage.

If 3-stock is desired, then the number of Rounds in a Set must be dropped to 1 with Finals and Grand Finals being a Best of 3 Set.  To do compromise with anything else will just result in longer games, longer tournaments, and less hype.

----------------------------
tl;dr

1) %-based tie-breaking motivates stalling-tactics; it needs to go.
2) Timer should be 10-min standard, but 99-min will guarantee stalling is eliminated.
3) The Smash community needs to try out 1-stock 1of3 matches (Finals 1of5) *if* they want 'traditional fighter' paced action.

Smashers, if you want change, than you have to accept the consequences as well.
If you're afraid of change, then the game will forever be stuck in it's own mire of stagnation.

-------------------------
(And just for the fun of it)

Melee Grand Finals - Genesis 2
Mango (Fox) vs Armada (Peach)
Round 1:
@38.s, 1st KO (Armada's stock)
@46.s, 2nd KO (Mango's stock)
@84.s, 3rd KO (Armada's stock)
@117.s, 4th KO (Mango's stock)
@142.s, 5th KO (Mango's stock)
@152.s, 6th KO (Armada's stock)
@209.s, 7th KO (Armada's stock)

I am personally against the ban of Meta Knight for several reasons, but that does not make me oblivious of the myriad advocates of his removal from competitive play over the past 3 years.  I am also not so biased in my opinions as to completely disregard any future evidence as to why such a ban should be put into place.

But we must realize one thing:

Meta Knight must be banned by the community as a whole, or not at all.

Thus I am spearheading the project to get everyone to work together, examine the problems, and then come to a conslusion.  I invite everyone who is willing to put effort into their cause - whether for or against the MK Ban - to do something instead of theorizing, debating, and complaining.

For those of you interested, you have been invited to join the following group:




(AiB) Meta Knight Ban Research

Please spread the word.