Sure, thank you for bolstering my point.
um, arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. Being a language nazi makes you doubly so.
Mod parent up +1000!!! Holy crap its about time people other than liberals started posting on popular internet forums.
"The watering-down of titles for the Wii certainly isn't universal. Almost every game released by Nintendo is solid. The story lines are outstanding, the controls capture the essence of the Wiimote, and the graphics are just fine. Super Mario Galaxy and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess immediately come to mind when I think of Wii games that aren't watered down. They are stellar titles that anyone should play. And they match any full-featured game on other consoles. The same can be said for the vast majority of titles built exclusively for the Wii. Punch Out was great. Wii Sports provides an incredibly fun experience. Simply put, there are a variety of compelling games on the Wii that still make it a worthwhile console. But unfortunately, the vast majority of those full-feature Wii games have been developed by Nintendo. The reality is that many third-party developers haven't been able to capture the true power of the Wii and thus water down their games to bring them to the popular console. If gamers want the best experience for those games, they'll need to play them on another console."
So in other words, the problem is not the Wii, it's the capability of the developers? Why is it the Wii's fault that third party developers water down games because they can't develop properly for the Wii? Do third party developers not have all the tools, knowledge, etc they need to develop for the Wii? Is Nintendo holding back on third party developers to ensure Nintendo always publishes the "best" titles (I hope not!) Based on this paragraph, I am led to believe that Nintendo is perfectly capable of writing awesome games for the Wii while everyone else is incapable of doing the same.
but may I ask: what is the real benefit to totally handcoding a site as opposed to using web design applications? I really like the ability to create a layout in Fireworks and then have that imported into Dreamweaver where I can continue to design graphically or code by hand where I feel it is necessary. I can see what it will look like instantly in the WYSIWYG, and then test it in the million different browsers I have installed on my system. Some of us do not want to code our sites 60 hours a week, we want to spend the time on figuring out the actual look and feel of the site, writing copy, editing graphics, etc. Maybe if you have a full team of developers and a marketing department its a different story...marketing writes the copy, creates the images, has the concept for the layout of the site, and then developers just code it to marketing's specs.
But many organizations, especially small businesses that like to do things in-house don't have those luxuries. I have been in the position of being responsible for ALL ASPECTS of a corporate site, from copy to images to layout and coding. Many people in positions like mine love the ability to quickly put together the site, have an automated tool tell me the code is compliant to whatever standard I desire, and then dive into the code where I see things just aren't right, or to write the dynamic portions of the site that can't be put together in a WYSIWYG environment. Tools like Dreamweaver (especially Dreamweaver, I've used it since Dreameaver MX) and really the entire Macromedia Studio/Adobe Web Design package as a whole have been a Godsend.
Ultimately if the page looks great, runs well, is secure, built quickly, cost effective, and meets all the requirements of the organization or customer, what's the problem? Other than personal ego and bragging rights (neither of which have anything to do with creating a website), I don't see the big deal.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman