Games design? Certainly.

Control scheme design? Hell no. Vast, overwhelming majority of those who think they have the new revolutionary thing in that aspect create a horrifying abomination that should have never left designer's desk. While all the best schemes typically use derivates of well known control schemes.

After all, we've been working on control schemes for far longer than we had games, or even computers. We know what works and what doesn't. The only shifting goal post is the advancement of technology, and more often than not it results it complete and utter shit anyway, such as kinect motion controls.

I just played one finger death punch. Relying on just two buttons can make for a very compelling experience as well.

That doesn't mean that it would work in most use cases.

No, if you keep the control scheme optimized for controller when controller is plugged in, but enable a mouse based control scheme as well for mice, mouse as a superior controller that has pixel perfect controls will win.

It's a very simple fact. Controllers do not have pixel perfect precision. Mice do. That means that a mouse will essentially always be a superior control input device when pixel-perfect input can be beneficial.

And there are very few game genres where it's not.

Bungie of the old got destroyed into halo-excreting studio by microsoft just as much if not more.

I still remember Oni with nostalgia. It's the game that set the bar for spectacle fighter genre in 3d. Halo on the other hand was just a demonstration that even crappy console controllers can be used to play first person shooters if you make the game forgiving enough in terms of aim.

Mine cost me about 700 euro, and it still runs almost everything on very high detail three years after the purchase.

It actually works better than on controller when done properly due to pixel perfect control scheme. It's similar to one used in flight sims - you make an elliptic control field around the ball and guidance is done through both distance and direction from centre point of the field with orientation arrows going from the centre to provide feedback.

When you do this scheme right, and then put people with KB/M against people with a controller, people with controller stand no chance. Controller simply stumbles on its main problem - lack of pixel perfect control.

The normal approach to parasitic treatment is to give patient drugs that are highly toxic to the parasite and much less so to the host.

You are asking the question that is in fact answered in the post you answered to.

The only problem there is money. Not intelligence. In fact, a lot of researchers doing research everywhere in the world are in fact foreigners in the country doing research.

The issue is that of funds. This research is astronomically expensive and extremely difficult, requiring very expensive hardware, extremely specialized workforce and solid infrastructure.

If you're trying to push for american exceptionalism line here, you certainly can. It won't make you any less silly, as this kind of research also happens in all other rich countries. It just doesn't face the same pressure on the embryonic cells as it does in US due to prevalence of certain religious groups and their grip on power that is largely absent in Europe and Japan, the other two giants in the field.

Err, why are you talking about traces of infection and other subjects utterly irrelevant to topic discussed?

Are you really so ignorant of the world that you think that any of these countries have christian majorities?

In Japan, extremist taoists and buddhists are the problem. In India, usually hindus and buddhists. And China has strong enough central government to suppress such people.

Bible is the outdated version. More modern version is called Quran.

In before someone tells us that all this fancy 2.0 stuff is lame and that real men use Torah.

Except that most "bible thumpers" hate embryonic stem cells and often hail induced pluripotent stem cells as the "religiously ethically correct alternative", as they do not require embryo to produce.

That sounds like the actual reason and the main problem behind iPS. They are about as high of a hanging fruit as there is on that particular tree of science right now. A lot of research into inducing cell into becoming a stem cell has been done, and the only methods that work are extremely difficult and expensive to implement.

As a result, there's a lot less research on the topic, simply because we have already picked all but the highest hanging fruit already. Most methods are either impractical or are being outed as either mistakes or fraud (read up on STAP cells for a good recent example, they were outed as fraud just a week ago by the same research institute that hailed their invention in january). So if internal review board can't find good research, it's likely not because of politics, but because there simply is very little promising research available on the subject.

This is actually correct, as the article talks about induced stem cells. Induced means they are not stem cells naturally (i.e. embyonic).

Without getting into the whole "who believes in god, life and are adults with invisible friends silly" argument, the point is that this field of research is about making stem cells out of cells that are not stem cells. In other words, from cells that we don't have to extract from embryos.

This is why the research is so difficult in largely fruitless.