5 older video games that were better than their predecessors

     One thing that I really don't like about the vast majority of video gamers is that they are band-wagoners. They only play the most recent games, because they see that as the cool thing to do. They say they like games x, y, and z, only because they are recent games, even though, when compared to older games, these games are complete and utter shit. They never play older games, (pre-2005 or so), and utterly deny that they ever liked those games, even when, at the time these games came out, they said they loved them, because, at the time, they were the recent games.
     This annoys me because the video game industry has steeply dropped in the quality of video games it is producing the last decade or so compared to the decade before last. I mostly play old video games, and every two years or so I'll find a good new video game that I really like, (like Assassin's Creed 3 and Dead Island), but for 99% of the time, recent video games are not nearly as good as they used to. I have no problem looking up old video games that I didn't play back when they were new, and finding a couple that look interesting, and ordering them off the internet to play them now. I did this with Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and the Legacy of Kain series, and they were great games to play even though they were more than a decade or so old. That's a very rare thing to do, because most gamers have the mindset "If it's old, it automatically sucks."
      Another thing that I like to look for in video games is one that is better than the previous one in the series. This is rare not only in video games, but in other media like movies as well. It's hard to top the original because you have to walk a fine line. If you make it too much like the original, then people will say "Oh, this is too much like the first one, it adds nothing new to it, the developers couldn't think of anything else...etc." However, if you make it too different than the first, then people will complain "Oh you took out my favorite things about the game, you changed it too much, it's not even the same game....etc."
      So here is a countdown of the 5 best older games that were better than their predecessors:

5. Hexen>Heretic

    

     Heretic: 5/10

     Hexen: 6/10

Synopsis of Heretic: An powerful evil sorcerer and his army has taken over your lands and corrupted them. You must fight through damned cities and demonic strongholds to get to the sorcerer and defeat him to save your world. 

Synopsis of Hexen: Another evil being, the older brother of the sorcerer you defeat in Heretic, has invaded a totally different world with his army. You must choose one of three characters to play as to basically do the same as in Heretic: go through a lot of creepy places, fight monsters, solve puzzles, and defeat the head honcho. 

     What Hexen did better than Heretic:

• Changed the atmosphere. Heretic is a frantic, action paced first person shooter, with a lot of enemies and minimal puzzle solving. While this is cool, Hexen changes it up a bit by making it a creepy, gritty first person shooter with less enemies that are tougher to beat, and with very elaborate and complicated puzzles to solve. Heretic's music is standard MIDI old school music. Hexen's is still MIDI but it gives the game a sense of horror and scariness that is not present in Heretic. Hexen can legitimately be a scary game at times, especially for younger kids.  
• Changed the level progression. Heretic is a linear game: you beat one level to go to the next in order, and you never back-track. Hexen is a hub based game where you have a home base level, and from there, you branch out to other levels to solve the main hub level puzzle. You have to go back and forth many times to proceed to the next hub. This makes it a harder game to beat, and therefore, a more satisfying game to beat. It also adds a level of sophistication that is not present in Heretic.  
• Added a limited RPG element to it. In Heretic, you only play as one person, and therefore, only have one set of weapons. In Hexen, you can choose one of three players: a fighter, a cleric, or a mage. Each has their own playing style and set of weapons tailored to that fighting style. This allows a more customized play for the player.
• More varied locales. In Heretic you pretty much play in dungeons/necromancer/demon sort of plays. None of the places really stand out. In Hexen you fight in fortresses, badlands, swamps, etc. They are more varied and therefore are more memorable.   

      Both of these great games are on Steam for like super cheap like $5 or so, so download them and give them a go!

4. Heroes of Might and Magic 2>Heroes of Might and Magic 1

     Heroes of Might and Magic 1: 4/10

     Heroes of Might and Magic 2: 7/10

Synopsis of Heroes of Might and Magic 1, (HoMM): It's a medieval fantasy strategy game where you can pick one of four factions: a Knight, Sorceress, Barbarian, or Warlock. You get a castle and get soldiers/magical monsters and then proceed to conquer the map in turn based combat. 

Synopsis of Heroes of Might and Magic 2, (HoMM): Not much has changed. You're still in the same world as the first one, and the premise is still the same. Two new factions have arrived, the Wizard and the Necromancer, to make 6 in total. 

      What HoMM 2 did better than HoMM 1:

• Way better music. HoMM 1's soundtrack was bland/uninspiring MIDI music, except for a few good tracks. HoMM 2's soundtrack is an utter masterpiece that is better than 99% of movie's scores and other New Age music. 17 years after it came out and I still enjoy listening to the music as much as I did when I first got the game. Hands down one of the best video game soundtracks I have ever listened to. The music definitely draws the player into a fantasy world. It's hard to pick my favorite track but here's just one of my favorites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRHor2L_NQE 
• Better artwork. HoMM is very cartoony/kiddy when it comes to the animation of the background and monsters. It's okay, but HoMM 2 makes it awesome. Visually it is still a very aesthetically pleasing game to look at even given the limited graphics the producers were working with in 1997. 
• The addition of some features such as a marketplace makes game play much  more easier and realistic. The two additional factions make it a funner game to play, as it gives the player more options to suit their fighting style. The addition of new terrains such as the beach and the badlands make for more varied maps. More spells is good. Basically more everything is good. 

      Both of these games are available on gog.com, again, for very cheap. Definitely worth the small pocket change, as these games can immerse you for hours on end.      

3. Jak 2>Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy 

      Jak and Daxter: 4/10

      Jak 2: 8/10

Synopsis of Jak and Daxter: 2 evil sorcerers, Gol and Maia, are planning to destroy the world etc the usual bad guy stuff. Also, your best childhood friend, Daxter, gets turned into an Ottsel, (a orange rodent), and you have to figure out how to change him back, as Gol is the only person in the world who knows how to do so. The game is a platforming/hub based collection game that is similar to the Spyro series. You run around locales, gathering precursor orbs, (money), fighting monsters, and solving puzzles. 

Synopsis of Jak 2: Gol and Maia are defeated, Daxter remains an Ottsel. Jak and the gang get teleported into the future, where their tropical home is now the center of a huge, sprawling distopian city called Haven City. A tyrant called the Baron rules with an iron fist from within, and monsters called Metal Heads are beating down the city walls from the wastelands. Jak has to figure out how to survive in this new, much more dangerous world and try to find a way back home. This game is more like Grand Theft Auto, with an almost open world environment that you navigate freely while completing quests from many different locales.  

     What Jak 2 did better than Jak and Daxter:

• Combat is much more fun. In Jak and Daxter, you fight with just your hands and feet, and the occasional Eco boost. It's very limited, as the game focuses on puzzles and exploration more. In Jak 2, combat is a much more bigger presence in the levels. Not only can you have hand to hand combat, but Jak gets guns, he can fly vehicles, man gun turrets, etc, all the cool action stuff. It adds of this combat action while still having puzzles and exploration being important too. Oh, and you can turn into a killer mutant and proceed to fuck up monsters and soldiers with your claws and blowing the shit up with your...mutant powers, I guess. Whatever, it's cool!  
• Story-line is much more cooler. Jak and Daxter has a limited story-line with very few video clips. It really isn't central to the game. The story-line, while present, is kinda lame compared to its sequel. Who hasn't seen the "bad guy going to destroy the world" story-line before? Jak 2 has a ton of movie clips, one for each mission basically. It does a lot to bring the player into the world. Characters actually have character development. There are many plots going on at the same time. Jak, who is a mute in the first game, is a genuine bad-ass in Jak 2. You like Jak, you want Jak to win, you want to be Jak. Jak joins a group of underground insurgents and then proceeds to fuck up the entire Krimzon Guard, (the Baron's army) practically single handedly. 
• Environment is cooler. Jak and Daxter takes place mostly in rural zones with minimal population and no authority whatsoever. Interactions are limited because the environment is limited. In Jak 2, you have the Krimzon Guard constantly on patrol. If you attack one, the whole city will come down on you until you hide for a while or you die. It gives you the sense that you are being hunted. And the Krimzon Guard are tough; you cannot last against them for long. It is actually realistic, as insurgents can rarely hold their own for long against occupying forces.  

Both games are for the PS2 and are abundant online. Obviously they work with backwards compatible PS3s as well.

2. Oblivion>Morrowind 

 

      Morrowind: 2/10

      Oblivion: 8/10 

Synopsis of Morrowind: Imperial forces rule the Dark Elf, (Dunmer) province of Morrowind. The central plot revolves around the reincarnation of the Dunmer hero, Indoril Nerevar. The incarnate of Nerevar, referred to as "The Nerevarine", has been prophesied to oppose and defeat the rise of the malevolent deity Dagoth Ur and the remnants of his followers. These followers are encompassed in a forbidden faction named "The Sixth House", and are mainly located within the volcanic region of Red Mountain in the center of Vvardenfell, the island on which the game takes place.

Synopsis of Oblivion: Some years after Morrowind, we're not sure exactly how much, fanatical zealots of an obscure demon worshiping cult murder the emperor of Tamriel, plunging the empire into chaos. To make matters worse, this somehow broke the planar barriers separating Tamriel and the demonic plane of Oblivion, where the demons, (daedra), are. So now we have a demonic invasion led by a demi-god on our hands. 

     What Oblivion did better than Morrowind:

• Fixed fundamental flaws that made Morrowind unplayable. I have no idea how Morrowind sold so many copies, got so many good reviews, etc, because that game is a train-wreck from start to finish. I can't play it. First off, you can't block. At all. What kind of first person RPG game that focuses on melee combat doesn't let you block?! And since no character is fast enough to dodge anything, combat becomes a taking turns style of trading blows. Boring, and that means even the weakest of enemies will hit you once, maybe twice. That wouldn't be so bad if you had healing potions. But there aren't any in the game. At all. I searched for hours, I found no potions in loot. I stopped by shops, no one had any. What the fuck was wrong with Bethesda Studios when they made this game?! I had to sleep after every other battle to recover my health. Then, after playing the game for 9 hours, I had still not leveled up at all. Not once. I used many skills but I never got a level up. What's the point of making an RPG game if you can't level up after 9 hours of gameplay?! Lastly, there is no organization of your quests, making following them impossible. 
• Oblivion fixed all of this. You can block, thank God. Health potions are abundant in loot and in stores. You level up regularly, and the game clearly explains to you how to level up. And your quests are organized in a book and they have markers showing you where to go and things like that. What a relief.     
• Music is better. Morrowind's soundtrack is one of the only good features about this game. But Oblivion even tops that soundtrack. Like HoMM2, it is a classical/New Age music masterpiece. Again, I don't have a favorite, but here's a really good one:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Q-7dJU0ys. Not only that, but it's dungeon tracks are downright scary and really set a good atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS1gjFh36GI  
• Combat is more fluid, you can actually learn spells!!! (Learning spells in Morrowind is near impossible, as they never tell you how to). Animation is better. 
• Environment is better. Not just the graphics, but just how they made the world. The forests are beautiful, Oblivion is really what I picture Hell to look like. The Shivering Isles are awesome!

 

 

 

Both games are for the PC. Oblivion works for Windows 7, and is also on the X-box 360, but I recommend the PC version because you can mod the shit outta it. 

1.Serious Sam The Second Encounter>Serious Sam The Second Encounter

 

 

Serious Sam The First Encounter (TFE): 6/10

Serious Sam The Second Encounter (TSE): 10/10

Synopsis of TFE: In the 22nd century, humans have spread out to numerous planets, creating a sort of empire. Suddenly, an evil alien named Mental, (pun intended apparently), and his insanely big army of a conglomerate of aliens invade, and push us back to Earth. In a desperate bid to save mankind, humans can only send 1 person back in time, in the hopes that he will defeat Mental in the past to avoid humanity's destruction in the 22nd century. Kind of like a Terminator sort of plot. The man they send back is a one man army/unstoppable killing machine that makes Chuck Norris and Rambo look like pussies. His name is Serious Sam. 

Synopsis of TSE: Serious Sam continues his rampage across the ancient world, after slaughtering every alien in Ancient Egypt. His journey takes him to South America, Babylon, and Europe, in which he slaughters even more aliens, as if that even seemed possible. 

      What TSE did better than TFE:

• Bigger battles. This is the number #1 reason why TSE is better than TFE. The sheer insanity of the battles you fight in this game dwarf any other first person shooter. It is an adrenaline rush that just never stops. Here's just a short video which illustrates the action this game has: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HdT-Ci1GbA. As you can see, a 4 minute ride of non-stop carnage. 
• More varied locations. TFE is only set in Egypt. While the locales are cool and graphics are awesome even for a 13 year old game, TSE takes it up a notch. You go through the jungles of the Aztec Empire to Babylon under the Persian Empire to villages and castles in medieval Europe. It's more visually pleasing than just seeing deserts and Egyptian temples for an entire game. 
• More weapons and enemies. Need I say more?
• Better music. As you can tell, music is a huge factor in how I judge games. TFE had some great music, no doubt, but TSE manages to even top it. It has great ambient music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUJD1Ho2wj8 and great heavy metal fighting music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swotKhlIlZA&noredirect=1 

     Both these games are on Steam for really cheap!!
     In conclusion, it's a shame that many American gamers do not know about the Serious Sam series. They only pay attention to American games or mainstream games, and that's it. Serious Sam was made by Croteam, which is from Croatia. If only bandwagoning gamers knew what they were missing, as Serious Sam TSE is my favorite first person shooter game of all time. It makes Call of Duty looks like child's play.
     All I'm saying is to expand your restrictions. So what if a game is old or foreign? So what if its not popular? That doesn't mean it isn't good. Look at its gameplay on Youtube and see if it interests you. You might wanna rent it. Who knows, you might like it. And won't you be glad you tried something off the beaten path this time?   

People are obsessing over the wrong type of diversity

     It seems everywhere I turn, people, (mostly young dumb clueless liberals who think of their whining as "activism"), are nerd raging about how so and so institution needs to hire more minorities, how such and such place needs to have more women leading the place, how this and this school needs more minorities taking classes from it, how that and that business has too many white men working for it, etc, etc, the list goes on and on but they are all along these lines.
     While any business or institution needs to be fair to every race, gender, religion, etc, and while diversity is an important aspect of any group, it is not the main goal of the business/group.
      A car shop's job is to fix cars. A car shop's job is not to make sure it hires enough Hispanic people so liberals won't call it a racist business.
      The minute a business or organization starts to care more about "being diverse" than to deliver the product or service it is designed to give, that is when their quality of work goes down. That is when they don't perform as well. That is when they're not doing as good as they could. And this is one of the many contributing reasons why our country is starting to suck more and more. It isn't by far the main one, but that's not the topic of this post. Let me show a simple and quick example to illustrate what I mean.
      Let's say 2 grocery stores wants to hire 6 cashiers. 10 people apply to it, and the business ranks them by how good cashiers they are. 1 being the best cashier out of the 10, and 10 being the worst. Next to each number is the race of the person. For the simplicity of the argument, out of the 10 people, all of them are either Black, White, or Hispanic.
     1. Black
     2. White
     3. Hispanic
     4. White
     5. White
     6. White
     7. Black
     8. White
     9. Hispanic
     10. White

      Grocery store #1 has been brainwashed by liberal media. They think having a diverse staff is more important than being a good cashier. So they hire 2 people of every race, being "fair." So they hire numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9.
     Grocery store #2 respects all races, and doesn't give a flying shit what race you are. They want good cashiers, so they do the logical thing and hire numbers 1-6.
      Now compare the two stores. Grocery store #1 skipped persons 5 and 6, even though they were better cashiers than 7 and 9. They passed up better applicants to be more diverse. So they end up with a worse workforce vs grocery store #2.
     Worse workforce=less work=less products/services= crappier products/services=worse company.
      Now, this one example might not seem like it can cause America to become a less desired place to live. But picture thousands of companies doing this for decades and decades. Over that time we have a huge percentage of the working population who are doing their job worse than someone else who applied. We have people entrenched in their positions who are lazy, rude, horrible workers who lower the quality of a company or organization. You wonder why the government can't get anything done? You wonder why the local restaurant consistently fails to do basic things like have a schedule for their workers, know of their own hiring process, have rude and horrible waiters, yet is still standing?  You wonder why the store clerk can do things slowly on purpose just to irritate you, and talk to you in a demeaning tone, yet still is able to keep his/her job throughout the years? You wonder why the office worker is head of her/his department yet takes an hour everyday to log into his/her computer because that simple task completely bewilders them everyday?!
     It's because we have people in their positions not because they were qualified for their jobs, but because of the color of their skin. By definition, that is racist: judging someone by the color of their skin. It's exactly what Martin Luther King. Jr deplored and spoke out against for years. And now people who claim to be inspired by him are doing the one thing he worked so hard against.
      Absolutely fucking disgusting.   
   

     

    Now let's move onto the second part of this post. Does anyone know why diversity is important in a company, organization, school, etc, whatever the case may be? Because people coming from different walks of life have different ways of solving problems, different outlooks on things, different ways of approaching a goal or challenge, different personalities, etc, etc, you get the idea. This leads to people being exposed to ideas, concepts, outlooks, etc, that normally they would not be exposed to if they were in a group of everyone who was the same. 

     More choices: a better opportunity to choose a better choice. Diversity brings increased worker productivity, increased profits, higher worker morale, etc, etc, because they are able to do things better, faster, more efficiently, due to the diverse pool of thought and ideas that they have available in their workforce. 

      Look at history. The high points of many countries and empires were at the time that they had many immigrants come together within their borders. This diversity brought profit and power. Islamic Caliphate, Roman Empire, Renaissance Italy, America in the 20th century, all had extremely diverse populations. These people brought their different experiences, life lessons, perspectives, etc, to the important industries: science, manufacturing, the arts, math, which made the country/empire more prosperous. 

     The problem with today's society that throws that diversity concept out the window is the emergence of total near encompassing, mainstream, bandwagoning culture that the vast majority of Americans are included in. So today, a company might have a diverse employee base by race, but by diversity of the mind, they are near monotonous. They all have the near exact same political beliefs, near exact same hobbies, near exact same way of thinking, near exact same personality, near exact same outlook on life, near exact way of working, etc, etc, the list goes on. 

     That is a workforce that doesn't think outside the box, that can't come up with a minority dissent on an issue, that everyone gets stumped on the exact same problem because they all think the exact same way and they can't picture thinking any differently, that is not adaptive, that cannot have a different opinion on an issue that is not the mainstream opinion, etc, you get the idea. 

     Monotonous workforce=less work=less products/services=crappier products/services=worse company. 

     In conclusion, you notice how I didn't put up any links or citations for anything I wrote. That's because I don't need to. You can understand everything I wrote using logic, reason, and a rational and linear thought process. Any verifiable facts can be easily found using a simple Google search. To reiterate, my two main points in this post are:

1. It is NOT the goal or requirement of an organization or business to have a diverse workplace. It's goals is to provide the product and/or service it was made to provide. If the best workers I can hire happen to be mostly of one race, I'm going to hire every single one of them, and not hire other people who aren't as good but are of a different race. That is not racist at all, it is common sense business practice.  
2. Diversity of the mind is WAY more important than diversity of race.             

P.S. Not all white people are racist. Not all white males hate everything that is not male and white. Not all males wake up every day and think "Oh how can I keep women down today?" Judge people by their statements and actions, not their gender or the color of their skin.

Why pay to play online games suck (and other subscription based cloud software)

     This post will be a bit different than normal. Usually I talk about politics but today I'm going to be talking about video games. Video games is another big interest of mine; I started playing them in 1st grade. They're a good stress reliever because it allows someone to completely detach themselves from this fucked up world for just a little bit, and focus on something fun.
      The traditional way of selling and playing video games has been like buying 99% of all other products: you pay for it upfront, a one time deal, and then it is yours forever. This is the way it has been ever since video games were able to be sold to customers and they could take it home. This happened from the 1980's to about the mid 2000's. That's when things started to change, slowly at first, but now, this new way of selling video games is becoming more and more prevalent, and analysts say that eventually, all video games will be sold in the way I'm about to describe. This is rather annoying for me, because this new way completely fucking sucks.
      This new way is that you pay per month to log onto a company's server online to play a game. You no longer have a physical copy of the game. You just have a subscription, a log-in that you use. This sucks for us, the customers, for a number of reasons.

1. The cost of subscription based software will rapidly become more expensive than buying a physical copy, starting in just the first few months of owning the software. For example, let's say I bought Hellgate London in 2008 for $50. That's all it would cost me to play that game till the day I die. Now, let's look at the second example, where I would pay $10 a month to play Hellgate London online, through the company's servers. In just half a year, it would be more expensive for me to subscribe to that game versus if I had paid a one time price to have a physical copy of it. Fast forward to November of 2013. In the first example, guess how much money I've spent on Hellgate London? That's right, still $50. But how much would I have paid in the second example? A whooping $900.  For one fucking game. That is absolutely mind-boggling how expensive it would be, in addition to how mind-boggling it is that band-wagoning swag fags think this subscription based software is cool and hip and so much better than the "old way."
2. If you want to avoid paying that astronomical amount as described above, you have to constantly subscribe and un-subscribe to all your video games, based on the ones you're only currently playing at the moment. Let's say you only play 2 video games at a time. So you subscribe to those two for a while, then once you beat the game or tired of playing it, you have to unsubscribe to those 2 games, (to avoid being charged monthly for a game you don't even play), and then subscribe to 2 new video games. What if one of your friends comes over and wants to play a game you're not currently subscribing to? "Oh sorry man, can't play that one, I'm not subscribing to it at the moment."
3. If your internet goes out, bam, there goes your game. This is critical for people with shitty internet, like me. (Xfinity is ripping my landlord off like a motherfucker. She's paying for 55 mbps and I'm sitting on the fucking computer and can clearly see I'm only getting 5 mbps). Meanwhile, I'm having a blast fighting sand monsters in Prince of Persia, while you're sitting on your ass, not being able to play any of your games, because your internet went out. 
4. If the company goes under and gets rid of it's servers, then bam, there goes your game. I play a few games, like Hellgate London and Titan Quest, whose companies who made them no longer exist because they went out of business. Guess what, I'm still having a blast playing those games. But if you subscribed to one of these games online, then you lost your game. Sucks for you.       

 

     And this just doesn't go for video games, it applies to other online subscription software that lets you access it in the cloud, such as Microsoft Office 365. Let's say you and 3 other friends decide to get Microsoft 365 for the 4 years you guys are going to be in college. That's $100 per person, if you get the best plan geared towards students. (Some other plans for students are $130 per person, and they only allow you to have Office 365 on one device.)
      But let's say you and your 3 friends are smart and get the actual CD for Microsoft Office 2013. Guess how much that costs each of you? $13.75. I know critics of this idea will say "But the box software of Office 2013 will only let you put it on one computer!" To which I reply "Then install it without internet access and never register it. That way, Microsoft will never know how many times you've installed it!" It's a simple and easy way to save money. My siblings and I did this with Office 2010. We've had it installed on 5 different computers, all for way less than if we did Microsoft 365.
     In conclusion, this is very troubling for gamers like me, because if all video games start to be sold like this, then I'll simply not buy anymore new video games, and I'll just continue to play old video games. I refuse to go through all that BS just to have a little fun. If I spend my hard earned money to buy a game, then I better damn as well be able to play it when I want, how I want, and install it on as many systems as I want to. Combine this problem with the fact that the quality of storyline, gameplay, and the music of video games on a whole has substantially gotten pathetically worse since about 2008, (Skyrim is the one exception, and the only game since 2008 that I'd consider to be one of my favorite games), and we could possibly have the death of the video game industry as we know it.        

Why do people care so much about having the latest version of everything?!

The I-phone 5s recently went out on sale, and Apple reported they sold 9 million of them in 3 days.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/23/iphone-5s-5c-apple-record-nine-million

Today is going to be a rant against people's wasteful and self-hurting spending habits that hold them back from moving up in the economic ladder. I'm using the I-phone as an example, but it can be used in a variety of situations where people habitually, routinely spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on luxuries a year, which adds up over time.

Let's see what I'm talking about. The I-phone 5s is currently selling for anywhere between $400 and $800, https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=shop&q=iphone+5&oq=i&gs_l=products-cc.1.2.0l10.1574.1574.0.4757.1.1.0.0.0.0.63.63.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.QerQhbyll6k#hl=en&q=iphone+5s&safe=off&tbm=shop

Apple comes out with a new I-phone or improved platform for an I-phone every 6 months to a year. But there are many people, many poor people, who are obsessed with having the latest version of the I-phone as soon as they can possibly get it. They HAVE to have it ASAP, otherwise they aren't "hip" and their whole world is shattered. So every year, they blow $800-$1200 on a new phone. Every year. That is a huge chunk of their earnings, a huge chunk that could be used for much better purposes.

First of all, they can flat out just save that money. Put it in a bank. Save it for an emergency. Currently, 67% of Americans have little to no savings. They live paycheck to paycheck, http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2013/09/18/majority-of-americans-still-living.html
That is partly due to the crappy economy, but it is also augmented by peoples' incredibly poor spending habits. It wouldn't be a problem if someone splurged and got a new phone as soon as they could get it just once. But I know many people, whose finances are not so good, who do this every time a new I-phone or upgrade comes out. Just over 3 years that could be $2400-$3600 they spend. And that's not even counting the early contract termination fee, or data plan per month, etc. Do you really need a new phone every 6 months? Can you not wait for your two year contract to expire? Is there really that much of a difference between the I-phone 4 and I-phone 4S to warrant such an outrageous expense??

You could use that money to pay for a college class at community college. You can make a much needed car repair. There's a whole list of things your money could be better spent on.

Now, this wouldn't be a huge financial burden on people, if this was the only thing they put a lot of money down on. Like, if they were financially smart in all other areas of their life, to make up for this big splurge. That's not a problem. What's a problem is when this is coupled with several other constant luxury spending binges. Again, I know many people who do this. They're mostly young people, anywhere from 17-upper 20's. In addition to spending that much money on a new phone every 6 months, they spend dozens of dollars on alcohol, every week, and dozens of dollars on cigarettes, every week, dozens of dollars on gas for their car on trips that are not necessary, etc, etc, the list goes on and on. At the end of the month, they've spent all the money that they've earned, so they save nothing, and they stay being poor.
Several months and/or years of smart spending and saving can yield thousands of dollars in your bank, that can help you make purchases to move you up on the economic ladder. You know can qualify for a loan to get a new car, because you have enough money to make the down payment. You can afford to move to a nicer apartment, you can pay medical bills, buy school supplies, etc.
That's all I'm advocating. I'm not advocating not buying any luxuries, I'm advocating spending your money wisely. Indulge a bit, but not to the extreme where you're blowing hundreds of dollars every month on luxuries. I like to party hard as much as the next guy, probably even more. The more craziness there is, the better. But I'm also not an idiot. (Aren't those two sentences an oxymoron lmao?!) I know I can only afford to do this once a month. So that's how often I do it. I don't do it every weekend like some of my idiotic friends do, because then I would be even more poorer than I already am. You'd be amazed on how much you can save by limiting a few luxurious expenses.