Lurker > ZeldaTPLink

transcience posted...

- is SOTC legit?
- can Phoenix Wright bring in its enthusiastic fanbase on its own?
- does the Xbox 360 launch matter?

Not sure, I feel like hype for it is not the same anymore.
Maybe, with these votals a core B8 series might help.
Hell no.
---

DDL

2003 gives me the feeling of being when series stated sucking.

X-2 was when FF started losing popularity, apparently. WW was when Zelda games started getting heavy criicism. Pokemon R/S was when the series lost the popularity of the 90s. It's like this is when the series gamefaqs love started dieing, and nothing ever replaced them.

While 2005 gives me a much more positive feeling.
---

DDL

1997 is core enough. It has Cloud.

That's what I'm betting on.
---

DDL

I don't have snapchat, but I believe everything else is alright.
---

DDL

I can get if Allen wants to make contests less often, but 1 every 2 years is too little.
---

DDL

They both get smoked by the might of game.com, though.
---

DDL

Tempted to change my pick from 1996 to 2000.

SM64 is supposed to be a top 5 monster, right?

But Zelda... it has more respect nowadays than Mario. And Majora is a cult classic that only grows in popularity in places populated by 23+ yo people. And Pokemon + Final Fantasy is a scary combo.

It's single game vs depth all over again.
---

DDL

KamikazePotato posted...

Oh man, is it time to bust out the Adjusted 2015 X-stats (tm) again?

Super Mario RPG - 32.8256
Goldeneye - 28.81953144

SMRPG performed extremely well even if you entirely remove that RE4 match from the equation (which I had to because it was an outlier that destroyed all the rest of the stats). It ranked 18th in the entire field. Goldeneye didn't look nearly as strong as it used to...their positions basically reversed.

lol x-stats

(sorry I had to)
---

DDL

The 1995/1997/2001 gauntlet is giving me nightmares.
---

DDL

Do the massses know that history, though?
---

DDL

CHANGE

1985 > 1987 (had 1987 winning)
---

DDL

But this is my logic, I don't know. Maybe the match pic with ZELDA on it speaks louder.
---

DDL

Like, 1987 has Zelda, but 1985 also has Zelda. Because it has the console that gave us Zelda.
---

DDL

I dunno, I see it more as if people are gauging whether they like the console more than the game, not about the launch itself. And it doesn't make sense for a game to be better than its own console (unless it's something like Ocarina).
---

DDL

I'm looking at 1991 vs 1994 and realizing I'm betting everything on console power.

I'm also changing my bracket to 1985 > 1987 to stay consistent with that.
---

DDL

transcience posted...

I got suckered by Mega Man 2 once too.

The competition is literally 1983.
---

DDL

transience posted...

1989 doesn't have any killers -- its best is Tetris which didn't even really come out in 1989 -- so it probably isn't great. but it's also the year the Genesis, GB and TG16 came out. meanwhile, 1983 is the year the video game market crashed. hmm!

Mega Man 2. It's awfully popular among retro gaers.

Not that there are many NES gamers here, but it is a start.
---

DDL

Nahyuta at least looks competent, which is more than you can say about Fran.
---

DDL

Thought this was the new pokemon route thread.
---

DDL

I remember that "one less bracket" Snivy pick.

Does anybody still have it? It will be useful.
---

DDL

SantaRPidgey posted...

ZeldaTPLink posted...

I enter the long grass.

A wild Bellsprout appears!

Catch or Run

run
---

DDL

One safety/security measure causing a new problem is also common in aviation. They will just add another safeuard.
---

DDL

SmartMuffin posted...

ZeldaTPLink posted...

The likely outcome is that they will just change their policy.

Not to eliminate overbooking, but to ensure it never escalates to that again.

They already have policies to "ensure this never happens" That's why out of the millions of flights that have taken place, this has only happened once. Sometimes you have cascade failures. You have six safeguards and they all fail. So maybe they add two more safeguards. Maybe that "fixes" things such that instead of being a one-in-a-million occurrence, it becomes a one-in-two-million occurrence. But two million flights later when it happens again, will you be satisfied? Of course not.

Here is how it goes in aviation: every time a failure happens, someone adds another safeguard. The whole industry is shaped by past accidents. Probability matters little here.
---

DDL

The likely outcome is that they will just change their policy.

Not to eliminate overbooking, but to ensure it never escalates to that again.
---

DDL

I mean, it's kind of telling that I have to teach you that human lives can't be reduced to numbers, but carry on.
---

DDL

People aren't that rational. They don't calculate human lives in numbers.

One event is one event, and the measures that were taken to avoid it.

Another event is another event, and now people are waiting to see the measures.
---

DDL

WIldcard

2009
1989
2006
2005

Round 1

1995
1987
2001
2008
1997
2007
2000
1996
1991
2002
1994
2011
1998
1992
2003
2005

Round 2

1995
2001
1997
1996
1991
1994
1998
2005

Quarterfinal

2001
1997
1991
1998

Semifinal

1997
1998

Final

1998
---

DDL

Undertale isn't really popular lately.

Overwatch, on the other hand...
---

DDL

What the hell is 2011 doing in the final 4?
---

DDL

A lot of people would rather never go to Hawaii than endure the horror of flying.
---

DDL

SmartMuffin posted...

You gonna ride in the car to Hawaii? To New York if you live in California?

Of course some marginal customers can switch, just not enough to matter. And if they didn't switch because of the possibility of death in a firey explosion, and they didn't switch because of the constant videos of children being groped and fondled, they aren't going to switch because some obstinate loser got punched by the cops for failing to obey simple instructions.

The fiery explosion didn't count because like I said, it only happened once. The children being groped didn't count because people are willing to sacrifice their privacy for security. What they are not willing to do is sacrifice their security.
---

DDL

They can also switch to the competition, for that matter. If Delta makes an ad saying they don't do such things, people will change to Delta. They are probably making that ad right now.
---

DDL

SmartMuffin posted...

The latter definitely.

lol @ the notion that people can just choose not to fly

everyone claimed that would happen because of 9/11, then they claimed it would happen because of the naked x-rays, it never happens

They can.

Not all the people (businessmen can't, for example). But people who are doing a holiday trip will gladly choose to ride a car or not go too far if they let their fear of planes overcome reason. I've seen it before. I've heard many, many times from people saying they don't travel becaue they are afraid of flying.

And 9/11 didn't stop it because measures were put in place to ensure it never happened again. Measures like the ones United is making as we speak. Had terrorist attacks become common place, demand for flights would have gone down.
---

DDL

The airline was the one who had them forcefully remove the man from the plane.

And really, why does that matter? I am talking about customer perception. What do you think is more likely, that customers will avoid flying, or that they will convert en masse to libertarianism?
---

DDL

SmartMuffin posted...

Now, what if this same concept applies to the case of being beaten up by thugs?

People will stop paying taxes?

People will stop flying. Don't change the subject.
---

DDL

SmartMuffin posted...

They should just introduce a $50 optional charge for people who don't want to risk having the service they already paid for violently revoked by armed goons.

Literally no one would pay it.

They may not pay it, but they may fly less after this practice.

People are remarkably scared of planes. A lot of people continue to avoid flying despite the numerous scientific data showing planes are thousands of times safer than most common means of transport, like cars.

And this is why planes are so safe in the first place. Because, to keep being viable, the industry needs to offer a standard of satefy that is undisputably high. The same standard of satefy that is applied to cars won't do.

This is to show that yes, people are willing to pay for some things. As a matter of fact, plane tickets would be cheaper if planes weren't so much safe. But it isn't viable for the industry to deal with the uproar that would happen if they wllingly increased the ratio of acidents to reduce the price of tickets. The standard of safety is here to stay, and only grow in the future. Likewise, there is a standard of security that was estabilished after the WTC disaster, and demands that people are under no risk of getting killed or having their lives threatened in a flight.

Now, what if this same concept applies to the case of being beaten up by thugs? Will people fly less if they get a perception that flying offers such a risk?

And worse, what if that perception gets somehow associated with the perception of satefy mentioned above? After all, the man from the video could have been killed. What if this taps into the primal fear of flying people already have?

People don't mind tight seats or bad food, but for the flying industry, safety and security are absolute musts. If passengers start fearing there is a risk to their lives, they might abandon flying altogether.
---

DDL

I enter the long grass.
---

DDL

How can I call myself a 90s kid if I don't pick Charmander?
---

DDL

Is it too late to sign up?

Boy

DDL
---

DDL

I'm a Paper Mario fanboy so maybe I'm wrong.

But shouldn't it be in 2001?