Prez wrote on May 19, 2013, 19:23:

I'm not the slightest bit religious, but I have way more respect for people who are and leave others alone instead of the assholes who think criticizing them is somehow enlightening.

I stopped being surprised at just how much religious bigotry exists on the Internet long ago, and Bluesnews is definitely no exception, but I agree wholeheartedly with the quoted portion of Mad Max's post.

I'll be the first to bash a Christian who gets on his or her moral superiority high horse on things like sex, drinking, or gay marriage, but a guy who happens to proudly avail himself of his religious denomination while reviewing games is not an affront to anybody, and all this unwarranted scorn and mockery serves to make those who consider themselves enlightened or intellectually superior appear just the opposite.

Quinn wrote on May 19, 2013, 19:57:

ItBurn wrote on May 19, 2013, 15:14:

Quinn wrote on May 19, 2013, 14:55:
Overon: Well said.

ItBurns: Tell me you're kidding me? Don't go all Mass Effect on us :O

I find it hilarious how the first poster got that "hate speech!" reply, with Blues even saying he felt like deleting the post. It's fucking ridiculous.

People deserve respect, their religion and ideas do not. Exactly like Overon said. When a person tells me he believes in a talking snake, I laugh in his face. There's no crime in ridiculing religion. If you ask me, it's high time to do so.

I do believe we're JUST machines. Are you religious or do you believe in a soul or something? I mean, it's not far fetched or strange.

I don't believe anything. I go for knowing. I know humans as well as other animals have feelings, both physically and mentally. I know machines have not. Ergo destroying, damaging or raping a robot is different than doing that to humans.

Philosophical bedrock right here.

Game performance is also tied to FOV - the amount of geometric detail we put in each scene has been partly determined by this set FOV, and setting a wider FOV would have a performance impact.

Jerykk wrote on May 12, 2013, 06:45:

Overon wrote on May 11, 2013, 23:03:
Help me understand the cover shooter. Help me. Right now in real life combat zones, things like walls provide little protection against ballistic weapons. Yet in games like Mass Effect where they accelerate projectiles to super high speeds, stone, brick, and concrete stops them in their tracks. How can the futuristic weapons be so inferior to today's weapons when it comes to ballistic cover. Same goes for these cover shooters like this new Xcom game. To me this contradiction is so glaring that it makes it really difficult to play these games because I just keep thinking "this is stupid" constantly.

There are cover shooters with destructible cover or projectiles that can go through cover. Inversion or Binary Domain, for example. However, you act like invincible cover is limited to third-person shooters. It isn't. Most first-person shooters have invincible cover too. If you don't like unrealistically durable cover, you must not like Half-Life, Duke Nukem, Doom, Wolfenstein, NOLF, System Shock, Bioshock, Far Cry, Crysis, Quake, UT, etc. By that token, you must think Red Faction is the greatest shooter ever made because most of the cover in that series is destructible.