Reselling them defeats one of the major purposes of the program, removing inefficient vehicles from the road. All of those cars were getting no more than 18mpg, and the new cars are getting at least 22... but I would suspect much more since many people wanted that full $4500. Besides... at the end of the day, they're just a machine, no different than throwing out a (much larger and complicated) microwave.

The junkyard gets the car and has to give the dealership $50... beyond that, they have to crush the car... but I imagine most junkyards will still take any parts they find viable. The biggest problem is that junkyards just don't keep parts anymore. Since scrap metal became more valuable, any car more than, say 5 years old, was crushed for the steel. It's not because of this program... just the way junkyards have gone.

I just did. I'm not a new car guy... I would always buy used. I owned a 1989 Ford LTD Station Wagon, the very definition of a gas-guzzler. I've driven this car for the past 10 years and I was planning on driving this car into the ground (moreso). I anticipated a scene from a cartoon where one day the car fell apart on the highway and it was just me, on a seat, gripping a steering wheel. The day the car needed MAJOR repairs, I was going to go buy a nice used car.

Then, about 2 months ago, I begin looking into the cash for clunkers program. I did my research, made sure my car was eligible, and traded it in the day dealerships were able to do the trade. I'm now the proud owner of a 2009 Honda Fit... a car that gets double the fuel economy of my previous vehicle.

I would have never bought a new car, I can't stress that enough, but I manged to get an $18,000 vehicle for roughly $12,500 because of this program. Not only did I support a local dealership and buy a new car, I significantly reduced my carbon footprint... hey every little bit helps. I know the "big bad government" isn't appreciated here, but I would give them credit for this program, it was the right motivation to get a bunch of us to buy new cars. There were roughly a dozen people at the dealership who, like me, were just going to drive these old POS cars until the day they disintegrated... but this was the incentive we needed.

$240 - Wii
$40(3) - Wiimote
$20(3) - Nunchuck
$15(4) - WiiWheel
------
$480

Now they tell me...
$20(4) - Wiimotion Plus
$90 - $wiifit/board (will I need more than one?)
------
$650

And I still won't have any games for it besides Wii Sports. When you say "you have to buy the additions and accessories to enjoy the Wii" That starts to get pretty damn expensive for this generation's "budget console".

But it also shows that a lack of Photorealistic visuals can hamper an experience. No doubt there are dozens of great 2d, pixelated games on the DS and some great games with simple art direction on the Wii.

As a counterexample I look at the new Ghostbusters game. The entire point of this game is immersion; it is a decent game by itself, but as a Ghostbusters game it's a lot more fun. The Wii/PS2 version, while cute and stylistic, doesn't capture the immersion of Ghostbusters. You never really feel like you're in one of the movies, whereas the 360/PS3/PC version is cutting edge graphics and hyper-realism. And you know what, in another 20 years when computer game graphics are even better... you could redo this game from the ground up, replace every piece of art/texture/model... and it would be even better. The closer the game gets to being a realistic take on the films, the more accurate and immersible it will be.

This article has some of the best comments I've seen on Slashdot about gaming graphics. Instead of "Graphics =/= fun" crap everyone usually posts, there are tons of insightful posts about the importance of visuals in games and when/how they matter.

HoMM III is good... but what about HoMM IV? Entirely 2D but, I felt, it plays absolutely terrible. V came along and entirely renewed my faith in the franchise. I logged many hours in Heroes III, but Heroes V might be my favorite of the series. I like being able to spin the Camera, see character trot around as fluid, 3D models. For what it's worth, Heroes 2 is pretty much the same game as Heroes III, IV, V... why aren't you playing heroes II... or I for that matter?

That's an excellent point nobody has mentioned. I've only played a handful of Starcraft games, all of them on a LAN. Every one of those LAN parties was at a friends' house or place of employment that didn't have Internet access. I'll have to warn my friends about this, since we will never be able to play Starcraft 2 together.

I didn't have a computer up to snuff to play Doom 3 until 4 years after its release. In 2008 I finally played Doom3 and Half Life 2. I was amazed at how poorly Half Life 2 held up... It was visually unremarkable and the story/gameplay was tedious or nonexistent at times (Boat/Car). Doom3 on the other hand, even after 4 years, looked impressive. The gameplay really began to drag in the middle, but it was still a much more entertaining experience than Half Life 2.

Maybe he's not racist... but I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

http://newsone.blackplanet.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

You can't spout comments like this without people getting the impression that you're a pretty racist guy. If a friend of yours introduced me to you, and I said some of these things... you'd probably think I was a pretty racist guy. I could say "But I've interviewed a black guy and let a black guy host my show" but your fist impression of me will probably stand. Rush can talk to a few black people all he wants, but saying comments like these, playing songs like "Barack the Magic Negro"... it's pretty easy to see why so many view him as racist

Classic "old timer" gamer syndrome. Currently, there seems to be this backlash attitude that games can only be "good looking" or "fun to play"... that those lines can never cross. I would argue that both visuals AND gameplay are necessary to make a good experience.

I think a perfect example of requiring state of the art visuals to make a better product would be the upcoming Ghostbusters game. The entire point of the game is immersion, this is a sequel to the movies so it needs to look as close to a movie as possible. This is where the Wii/ps2 version seems to fail... it's a cartoon, not the movie. If you want to truly create an interactive experience that makes the player feel like a "ghostbuster" you have to make the game as photorealistic as possible. If they look likcartoon characters, the best feeling you'll get from the graphics is an episode of the Real Ghostbusters.

Is there room for a full length, cartoon style ghostbusters game. Absolutely, but it won't have the same impact that hyperrealism will. You can't truly experience a game tied to a movie franchise if it looks nothing like it.

This notion that games can only be fun or good looking is really grating to me. I might agree that there is some degree of "overboard" with developers and detailed visuals... but it depends on the game. Each game is different and the visuals are not separate. Mirrors Edge wouldn't look good as a blocky Doom style game. The new Giana Sisters game wouldn't be better if it had been done with lens flares and 3d. Visuals are part of the games package... if visuals are too sloppy or too poor, it takes away from the whole experience. Sometimes that means you need to make a full 3D world with HDR lighting, bumpmapping and 40k polygon characters... and sometimes you can make a great game with some good 2d artists.

Very similar to how the conservative movement was critical of the Bush administration running a very liberal fiscal policy, spending hundreds of billions on nation building and failing to veto a single spending bill.

Posted in the April fools story.

The tailgate on my 89 Ford LTD Wagon does the same thing. I don't know about the TV tuner, though...