Ninteodo fans showing their age.

Matt sums up Nintendos laziness in a great article.

...Nintendo has been cutting costs and taking shortcuts ever since it launched Wii. Not unanimously, of course -- it still goes all out now and again and delivers unequaled traditional experiences like Super Mario Galaxy, one of my favorite games of all time. It has the artistic quality and the technical knowhow to push Wii harder than any other company. But often, either to save time or money, to keep smaller teams or simply because it just couldn't care less, it doesn't bother.

I wonder if maybe Matt isn't showing his age a bit. I mean, if you think about it, people around my age (24-28) grew up on Nintendo, SNES, N64 etc. etc. and those systems had a bunch of great games out, but these great games came out when we were 8-15. Nintendo isn't being lazy, Nintendo is doing what they've always done, make games for people ages 8-15. At that age, just about any game is fun. The thing to take into consideration here is the age group. A lot of the games that the 24-28 year olds today find terrible and average are a blast to 8-15 year olds today, just like it was 10 years ago, the fundamental difference being that the 24-28 year olds back in our day were not 'experienced' as the 24-28 year olds are today, video games were just beginning to peak back then and we peaked with it, we grew up on video games. Now we've switched positions. Now we're the 24 year olds, and since we 'grew up' with Nintendo and Nintendo 'grew up' with us, we're expected Nintendo to follow us, but that isn't going to happen. Nintendo is going to continue to do what its known for, making great games for the younger age group, with the occasional hit for our age group, and how can we blame them? if it weren't for their games that captured our interest in our youth, then our age group might be left with little to no foundation today. Speaking from personal experience, Nintendo games of the past play a huge part in the xbox and playstation games of today, and it would be selfish of me to deprive someone else of that foundation because I want Nintendo to continue to exclusively market to my age group today. It isn't lazy, it isn't cutting corners, its simply marketing to a certain age group that we are no longer a part of, and its what Nintendo does best.

Picks for ultimate fighter!

Kimbo vs Housten Alexander: Housten Alexander. Judging from his most recent fight with Roy Nelson, Kimbo is still too tentative to be in the ufc. Yes, Housten has been knocked out twice, but so has Kimbo(3 times if you include his fight against gannon). Not to mention Kimbo he has had a history of difficulties with the concept of MMA, he has never looked good against any seasoned, valid, MMA fighter, PERIOD. Although I do have to point out, this is a good match up for Kimbo, as his record indicates he wins these types of fights, but I think Housten Alexander is too "MMA" oriented for Kimbo, oppossed to people like Tank Abbot who were basically street fighters in the MMA sport, as it is no surprise at all Kimbo would be people like that.

Jon Jones will beat Hamil. Jones has every conceivable advantage. Speed, strength, reflex. Jon Jones is just a beast plain and simple.

Roy Nelson wins based off of experience alone.


Marcus Williams and Matt Matriol....who cares. I say Marcus wins based upon Matt being demonstratively scared to death when Marcus got into his face in the show.

Sorry for the long absence, been busy.

Update: My prediction for Marcus Williams and Matt Matriol was wrong. Marcus lost because...well...he's terrible. His stand up was just atrocious, his take down attempts were laughable, and when he was actually on the ground, he was a little less than average. As far as the prediction goes, this would be my fault for basing the outcome of a fight on a smack talking altercation, rather than on fighting skills.

Update: My prediction for Kimbo vs Housten Alexander was wrong. First off I want to say WHAT KIND OF DECISION WAS THAT?!!! I thought it was pretty clear that Alexander won that fight! He won the first round, lost the second, and won the third based upon the leg kick and the final elbow at the end. It really sucks to accurately predict everything except the decision. I was completely correct, Kimbo was tentative in that fight. He waited the entire fight. He didn't even cut off the octagon for crying out loud, he didn't even check those leg kicks until the very end of the fight. His 'ground game' was nonexistent, all he did was capitalize on Alexander slipping, it's not like he took him down or swept him or transitioned from guard to mount or anything, he just kinda did a ghetto slam and like rolled into mount. I don't see a future for Kimbo in the sport, especially as he keeps squeaking by on these decisions.

Update: Finally(I wrote 'fianlly' because I was going to write 'finally I made an accurate prediction' and I started writing this update before the the disqualification was announced). OMG!!! LOSS BY DISQUALIFICATION? MAN! TALK ABOUT UNACCOUNTED FOR VARIABLES! SERIOUSLY? yet another accurate prediction of everything except the decision. My prediction for Jones vs Hamill was wrong, yes it was wrong based on a technicality, but wrong nonetheless. Still, my description of the fight was accurate and Jones just has too much skill for Hamill. Although I need to point out that I see Jones falling victim to the same fate as roy jones jr.

Update: I got one right. Roy won.