Gario

I'm assuming that people mean 'GM' when they say 'MIDI'. It doesn't help when that abbreviation stands for 'General MIDI', does it? Still, that doesn't give anyone the excuse to say 'MIDI' when they mean 'GM'.

BLIP Fun chord changes. Very fun, in fact. I'm surprised it wasn't written like that before. Jazzy. The overall soundscape is fairly hollow. I think in future revisions you would do well to fill out the soundscape a little bit more. Loved the little chiptune ditty in the middle, though... awesome. Listening to this track, it seems to just begs for some vocals to go over it. T-pain style, pop or just smooth vocals, male or female they'd all work, but I'm hearing vocals. It might just be me, but it just seems set up for it. Think about it. Overall, good concept, but it's certainly one that needs to be fleshed out. Can't wait to hear what you've got in mind.

Lookin' sort of grim, isn't it? *sigh* this compo's seen better days. I'd contribute, but I don't think that'd work, this time.

Porn. Lots and lots of porn. I mean what else could it be.

I hope LT is ready for the flood of submissions, here. Indeed, he asked for it .

I know no one wants to leave the whole 'Piracy' thing, but Sephfire has given us something new to argue abou... er, discuss. Amnesia and Story Structure

Damn you, Sega, sendin' out that request when I'm stuck working on business spreadsheets. Grr... maybe I'll have something tomorrow. EDIT: Oh, I found something to remix, alright. It's not sonic, either... or anything anyone would ever expect. Gimme a day or so and I'll have something to contribute, here.

Wait, isn't that like a combination of classical tunes? That's cheating, Zircon .

I will. I promise.

Ahaha, funny short. Sorry that I can't help you out, but I hope you find someone here that will support you.

*phew* Glad to hear it. And thanks to BLueBERRYKiWi for helpin' ya out, there - I could see many things crumbling due to your site collapsing.

And you wonder why people don't like you here? That is exactly what everyone was looking for. Good job. No we don't. It's all in the thread before. Nothing is lost, but now we know what you're trying to relate it to.

Alright, I'll give it a whirl (source here). Nice build-up. I'm suspecting I can hear a style to your music . At 1:26, those synths are too crowded, there - too much sound going in the same frequency range. Try dropping one of the synths there (preferably not the busy one, 'cause it sounds kind of cool). Pretty sweet style, overall. The piano sound doesn't stick out nearly enough, considering it is the closest thing to a melody, when it comes into play. Bring it closer to the front. I enjoy the synth 'guitar' thing, but please lower the fuzz, a little bit. It's distracting, atm. The guitar solo lead from 3:11 - 3:35 is too long. Cut one of the repetitions, since it doesn't improve the track, at all. Get to the meat of that section quicker (you know, with the strings and all that jazz). The strings, while very nice right now, could be better if you made them swell and make their articulations more realistic. They'd work great, then. From 3:11 - 5:26 you seem to have the same pattern and build on top of it. While at any point in time it sounds great overall it wears on the ears and grates on the person. You could cut out half of that section and it would work far better. You could, to compensate, have a section that mimics an earlier style you have (like 1:32 or 1:57) so the end of the track ties into the beginning. Have fun with it, but that last buildup is far too long. The overall mix seems to be a little high-heavy. EQ'ing the mastertrack so the highs are not so bad would be a good idea. Also, I hear some overcompression (especially at parts like 2:25), so be careful to open that up a little bit better. Having said that, this is a kickass track. Fix it up and put it up for mod review. I think this track has a good shot at OCR. Give it a shot, I say.

Hold on... "Copyright law has changed from one agenda to something contrary, which is disruptive to it's original purpose. It is difficult to copyright digital data according to older copyright laws, so people should go back to the old law and take advantage of this, even in face of collapsing the video game industry." I just reduced your argument to two sentences. If the argument is incorrect, forgive me; that's what I read out of the summary, and I don't want to read the thread recap, here. If it's incomplete, though, then that's the point - someone could read your posts to get the complete argument. A good sign of intelligence is the ability to reduce complicated information into a short, concise summary, not to tell people that it's 'too complicated to reduce' and ridicule them for making that reasonable request.

I merged two names together. Mario and... uh... Garfield, according to Archaon. Eh, it works. except for the double pasta cravings, dammit!

I understand the pace of the thread and the lack of response. I was curious what your response would be, though - glad you pulled through. I give you that (I believe I even added that in the post). Nonetheless, that's how your post is read, considering placement and context. They're not the same thing, so separate the two. Incomplete comparison is referring to the fact that you're simply saying 'It's pretty good' without a baseline, so continuing an argument from that point is confusing at best and hopeless at worst. Disregarding the premise refers to the fact that you're changing what MaxFrost was saying earlier, essentially disconnecting the argument from his altogether. Perhaps that was your intention, but now it has nothing to do with the previous eight posts (in relative to when that post was made). You did it again. You're assuming that your point of view is the point of view of the consumer. That is obviously not true, based on the response you've gotten here. The position you hold is neither the company's position nor the consumer's. Your position is an opinion of what the consumer might benefit from. There is a very large difference that's skewing the rest of the argument. That's not the fallacy. I worded it incorrectly, my mistake. Here it is from Wikipedia - they word it much better than I do. "The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem." The problem is that your 'perfect solution' is proven to be impossible not only by theory but also by reason, logic and empirical evidence. Because the status quo isn't your ideal you're saying that it's 'bad' when your alternative is impossible. Mmm, now I honestly wouldn't mind that except every time you attack someone on making an assumption you're trying to strike down their inductive reasoning on that very same ground. Inductions are in fact fallacies when applied to a deductive argument (which is what you've demanded in this thread) - you've pretty much attacked everyone here based on that fallacy. I'm afraid you set the rules, here, so you're no exception to them. No inductions. And no, I purposely did not chose the word 'generalization' because you need a sample to make a generalization. There is no reasonable sample for you to draw from, so for all intents and purposes you are making that bit up. Now go take care of your poor girlfriend. She sounds like she needs your help.

Your argument is an appeal to wealth, actually, by definition. You want the rich people to give their money to the poor people because... well, they're rich, and you want the money yourself. That's a faulty argument, in itself, not a valid one. That's not to even bring up the other five faults I brought up earlier.

Meh, I'll join in the fun again. Why not? It's good practice, What are you talking about?! You weren't even a part of this discussion before this very post - of course it's the argument. Everything you brought up has nothing to do with what the last page was talking about - as far as everyone is concerned, you're telling Davidoff that he is wrong in bringing that up (deny it, if you want, but that's how it is interpreted by most people). You then follow it up with a red herring. To be fair, MaxFrost did make this statement off-topic, so you could've been trying to reintroduce your original points, but you then follow this statement up with MMO details and statistics that make me doubt this is the case. An example of an incomplete comparison. You are throwing that out there without anything to compare that against. Not only that, you ignore an important premise brought up earlier by MaxFrost claiming that because it's the only game the person buys, it is therefore cheap. You're simply disregarding the premise, here. No, it is not, it never was, and it never will be. The 'issue' is with how to set the price so that the most profit will occur. That is a balance of exactly how high you can cap the price before the price will not justify consumer purchasing. Anything other than this point makes absolutely no sense to the company, so why would you demand them to stab themselves in the eye for you? Of course, Zircon already explained this to you, so i won't get into the details of economics. This egocentric outlook on the subject is an example of the psychologist's fallacy, since you are only viewing the outcome from your eyes, not from the eyes of anybody else (business, other consumers, etc., unless they conform to your belief). In order for your logic to work at all you must assume that everyone else has the same worldview as you, no matter how illogical that is. Which makes perfect sense. Before you go on, look at the question again and realize that their maintenance could not reasonably be kept if they sold the game the traditional way. Let's see, from your statistic there, and a rough guess of how many players there were at that time (about 7 million), 30$ per game, and that comes to... 210$ million. A ten million profit. Yay, until you realize that other games that don't need maintenance make 200 million more dollars, if they were sold at that rate. That equates to roughly a 200 million dollar loss, for the privilege. You're marching in with that theory again that people shouldn't charge more than precisely it's own worth, just because... it's bad that they make money. You know that your argument is really a thinly veiled appeal to wealth, right? That's another fallacy, by the way - there's no reason to be upset at the fact that they are making money other than the fact that they are rich and are making money. So what? I think you're missing a HUGE detail, here. And there it is. It is a very good deal to the people who buy it and get into it, since it's a cheap alternative to buying many games a month. The fact that Blizzard makes a lot of money on it has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the deal the person is getting, unless they, for some reason, don't like Blizzard getting money. Unlike you, most people do not care at all. In fact, many people are very happy that Blizzard makes money because that assures the people that Blizzard will continue to make games for them. Considering the entire premise of capitalist economics, game theory, utilitarian theory and just about any other related theory is that people will always act in their own best interest (a.k.a. are 'greedy'), of course that's the reason they charge this. You are not going to get very far into academics until you understand that people act according to their own best interests, and nothing else (easily proven, by the way, by countless studies from Psychology, Sociology, Game Theory, hell, there are writings by Greek philosophers that go into detail on it... Plato, you might want to look up his 'Republic', for example). There's too many examples to count, but I listed at least one specific in there. Look it up. By the way, this portion of the argument (you know, the one that claims that people should be upset because Blizzard could still lower the prices to make people happy) is a fallacy, itself - it's called the Nirvana Fallacy. Sorry, just because it isn't the absolute best deal that we could have doesn't mean we shouldn't be happy for what we've got. People aren't that stupid. Sheesh, a gross over generalization, too... Wait, since there isn't even a subject to make that claim from, you're just pulling that out of your... er, a false attribution. That is a made up assumption. Stop that. Why did I color my words? Because at this point I'm not really arguing a fixed point - I'm shooting down all of yours by simply presenting blatant fallacies, and I colored them because it'd fun to see how many there are at a glance. In that short post, I'd like you to see in detail the mistakes you're making. If I am wrong, tell me why (without resorting to equivocation or changing the goalpost). I colored it so it'd be easier to know what I want you to address. Yeah, I know this is an 'old' post, but bear with me. I'm not going to chase the thread, because it moves too quickly.

Going to mimic Dafydd and say these were quite good (if out of tune from time to time). Sometimes the guitar is too much in front (like the Fear Factory track), but other times you have the balance quite spot on (like the Life in the Mines track). I'm enjoying the album so far. Let's see what comes next .

That's the 'Author/Radical Dreamer Emulation' method of defeating piracy. 100% effective, in theory.

According to whom? *snicker*

I saw the 'Hurry' love on the front page, myself. Awesome - thank you, DJP, for setting that up there for us . If only the limit wasn't set to 96kbps and 8mbs, maybe I could've been there, too. Or not, according to Liontamer's comment on it, lol.

Oh hai Happy birthday!

Hey, it's better than a music theory major, that's for sure. That's if you want to talk about dead-end futures, that is.

Alright, why not? Even though numbering the arguments and splitting them into two separate arguments yourself implies that they are mutually exclusive, I'll include them altogether. Wait, this has very little to NOTHING to do with piracy. Perhaps it's a decent idea to save money (or sell more games, overall), but if there were fewer games in the market then that just makes a pirate's job easier. This is a non-sequitur argument that does not lead into the second point. Why did you want me to include it, again? Not to mention that most of what you said is highly subjective - there are more than enough people that like shovelware out there for it's existence to be justified. I don't like it and neither do you, but why would a company make it if no one liked it? For someone that likes attacking people based on them making assumptions and opinions, you sure do use them a lot yourself. First point - completely irrelevant. Next point. There you have it - your entire argument, in it's original form. Even in it's entirety it still reduces to that last sentence. Hey, I can actually agree with that. Too bad that wasn't your first argument (shown in full above - no denying that now). We can leave it at that peacefully, if you'd like.