What, all the ads for K-Mart shoes aren't paying off?

Looks like it's back to UT2K4 for me. I'm not going to pay monthly for such an old game with such a narrow focus and limited tactics, with zero modability (talking about QuakeLive, not Quake 3).

Warcraft will undoubtedly suck. Why can't people just let games be games and movies be movies? At best, there is nothing that can be done in a Warcraft movie that hasn't already been done better by Tolkien and Peter Jackson; and at least the Lord of the Rings stories were original at the time. Warcraft is a ripoff of a universe that borrowed extremely heavily from Tolkien.

What they should have done was a CG Starcraft movie - although that franchise also ripoffs Warhammer: 40K, at least we haven't seen something quite like it in a movie before. And Blizzard's CG work rocks, so it would have been double-win.

This comment was edited on Jul 23, 2009, 15:07.

Jesus fuck people, we're not actually TORTURING anybody down in Gitmo, unless you consider placing a Koran in a toilet to be a form of torture. Waterboarding is bad and shouldn't be practiced, but at least it's done extremely rarely.

Everyone's getting this confused with Abu Ghraib, which was shut down and those involved were prosecuted. Maybe not EVERYBODY was punished who should have, and that sucks, but it's life in an imperfect society. The fact is that the military doesn't go around torturing people. We treat our prisoners better than just about anybody else.

Wait..are there any videos that show off destructible terrain? All I'm seeing are buildings etc

I played a bit of the demo, and it seems that only the buildings are destructible. Which is a shame, because I remember the original Red Faction demo had a test area with unlimited charges that you could use to make a bottomless pit in the floor.

always down for games with destructible environments.. in fact it may end up being something that becomes commonplace in most 3D games, in the not too distant future

That's what I thought...in 2001 when the first Red Faction came out.

I wasn't trying to suggest there was a total equivalency, merely a similarity of principle. The reality is, there is no way for the insurgency to fight the US in any convential format. They are out-gunned, and out-teched to such an extreme degree it's not funny. It's like the proverbial "showing up with a knife to a gun fight". So they are going to have to adopt tactics that allow them some chance of success.

My point is, I guess, that while you and I might question their tactics, I can identify with why they chose them. And since the original point was that there couldn't possibly be anything from the other side in terms of "perspective" to show, I think that I've demonstrated that there is, or, at least, could be.

I don't think that anyone can seriously begrudge the terrorists for practicing legitimate military tactics, like shelling our bases and setting up roadside bombs, so long as they're attacking valid targets. But let's not forget that those who do this are still acting against our interests and the interests of their countrymen and are instead only serving to further the cause of spreading terror and ultimately setting up a religious theocracy in their country.

At best, the most well-intentioned insurgent is merely a useful idiot for terrorist masterminds to further their psychotic ideology. But at worst? They're brutal terrorist thugs themselves. How many are closer to either extreme? I'd suspect most are closer to the "terrorist/thug" side of things, as truly freedom-minded individuals are more likely to join up with the Iraqi/Afghan security forces.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter how many members of these terrorist groups reach the lowest levels of human evil any more than it matters now how many German soldiers bought into Nazism. Either way, they're working to support a truly evil ideology through force and terror and must be stopped at almost any cost.

The U.S. could have been heroes in Iraq, after all they took down Saddam Hussein. All they had to do was leave after that was acomplished.

Right, and the let the country descend into massive civil war, with no certain future for the democratic/representative government that is now in place? Yeah, let's just hand it to the Islamic radicals, that's smart.

Yeah, there are scum-of-the-earth terrorists fighting in Iraq. But there are also Iraqi citizens who are fighting a foreign invader that has taken over their country. It's really easy to lump everyone into the same category and dismiss them, but that ease doesn't make it true.

I'm only lumping in those who are attacking us and their fellow Iraqi citizens. Those people are, quite frankly, the scum-of-the-earth. You see, these terrorist organizations are/were operating against us there because they wish to see Iraq become a theocratic totalitarian state.

If you'll notice, they attack their fellow citizens (read: non-combatants) far more often than they attack us. They bomb police stations, they bomb weddings, they shoot up marketplaces, they oppress women and religious minorities and anyone who doesn't fall into line with them wherever they have enough power to do so.

So again, I wonder: what possible viewpoint of theirs could possibly be legitimate? There is none. That we're even having this debate is making me wonder if there isn't some legitimacy to the notion that gamers have difficulty distinguishing between reality and fantasy or good and evil. It's ridiculous.

This comment was edited on Apr 17, 2009, 10:34.

I love how people say, "Oh this can show both perspectives!" as if the other side had a worthwhile perspective to explore. Yeah, if only you could play a terrorist who had to bomb a wedding or try to kill as many Iraqi police officers as possible. Or play the Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq scum who cut limbs off of children in front of their parents as punishment for the parents' non-cooperation.

As a 28 year vet I can tell you it is high time we show ourselves for what we really are, HUMAN FREAKING BEINGS, who make terrible mistakes. After all the US military is a rather large org and with that comes the fact that they are going to recruit psychos, rapists, murderers and all kinds of other scum, that is a fact of life. Are you all like that of course not no more so than all of islams are radicals.

Wow, what military were you a part of? The amount of psychos, rapists, and murderers serving in the military is actually very minimal; the number is certainly much, much lower than an equivalent sampling of the civilian population.

This comment was edited on Apr 17, 2009, 09:45.

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Apr 6, 2009, 17:13.

If this game were third person it would not be fun to play. Simple as that. You wouldn't be immersed at all in the character and it would be exactly like every other dull platformer out there.

Five hours is very weak. I'm not going to buy it after all. They need to start going back to the 20 hour range, or else $60 is simply too much to pay.

Can I look down at my boobs and see how much health I have left?

No, you're an Asian chick - being able to see your boobs would be a bit unrealistic, amiright? Seriously though, this ain't Isla Sorna, and there' ain't no raptors around, so again, no...

Really looking forward to this game. Can't stop playing the demo, despite its brevity. I wonder how long the full game will be.

Despite its obvious console-related flaws - such as the "runner vision" and auto-regenerating health - this game offers such unique, intuitive and downright FUN gameplay that not trying it out at least once would be a mistake.

Wow. I've always wanted to play a WW2 FPS. Maybe I'll finally get my chance! To the best of my knowledge, WW2 still hasn't been covered by many games...at least none that I can recall at the moment.

Warcraft II clearly had the best music. It was standard synth-orchestra on the CD, so it was in between midi quality and orchestra quality. If you played without the CD though, you could play midi versions of each of the songs. And who could forget "Medieval Man"? lol!

Wait, you can't upgrade yourself and your weapons? It has to be one or the other? I can't say I like the sound of that. One of my favorite things about DX1 was the ability to take a weapon I got at the start of the game and continually upgrade it until it was the best weapon in the game. It seems I can't do that in DX3 unless I don't level myself up.

I'm pretty sure he means that you have the choice to use your points for whatever you want. Say you get 100 points, you can upgrade EITHER OR, depending on your need. It has to be one or the other only in that you can't spend points twice.

Still, it sounds kinda weird to me. Stat points upgrading weapons? WTF? What happened to weapons augs?

Wasn't that a chain of grocery stores back in the day? That and Gemco...wow, I must be getting old.

<i>So, unless your comment is preemptive, the notion of taking a few deep breaths is simply condescending as is the comment, "God-given right to excessively violent video games".</i>

This is Blues News, isn't it? While it's not quite as bad as Joystiq or somewhere like that, I expect a lot of stupid reactionary arguments like, "OMG I'M NOT A SERIAL KILAR SO VIDEO GAMES ARE ALWAYS GOOD!!1"

The reason I included the comment "God-given right to excessively violent video games" is because it is a given that at some point someone's going to claim that they're about to steal the right to buy video games.

<i>And how is this any different from TV, movies, or rap music? None of which face near the same scrutiny and are 100 times worse.</i>

Well, it's interactive, so that alone makes it quite different. It's on another level. Of course, I'm not defending this stupid bill, but whatever.

This comment was edited on Jul 23, 00:55.

Video game discussion boards and conservative forums are the two worst places to find intelligent discussion on this matter. I say that as both an avid video gamer and someone who generally leans conservative.

First of all, I'd like everyone to take a few deep breaths. This law will not deprive New York gamers of their God-given right to excessively violent video games. It's merely looking into the negative effects of said games. Two questions immediately come to mind:

1. Are there negative effects associated with violent video games?
2. Is this wasteful government spending?

The answer to both questions, of course, is yes. An unhealthy interest in violent video games can be an indicator for future violence, but it is only one of very many factors, many of which we do not fully understand. Also, this arena is the role of neither the state nor federal governments; not to mention the gaming industry is already adequately self-regulated vis-a-vis a fairly accurate rating system.
This comment was edited on Jul 22, 23:46.

Great, another MMO. The market can only sustain one, maybe two at best. Why didn't Bioware finish the storyline introduced and continued in the first KOTOR games (which were both awesome)? Now a huge number of players - such as myself - will be too turned off to try this new one. The fundamentals of MMORPGs ensure that a cohesive story and game world cannot be conveyed in an effective manner.

To paraphrase The Incredibles, "When everyone's a Jedi, no one is."

Guitar Hero is one of the best games to come out in years. It is pure, simple, addictive fun whether you're alone or at a party. Easy to learn, difficult to master; it is one of the purest examples of true "gaming" to have come out in years. All this without amazing graphics or a deep plot.

I'm not as fuck as you think I drunk. EL NEGRO?!!!!