alanschu

I'm just doing stuff at home. At this time I have no plans to actually go back to the gym. Also, I do know that curls don't have any real practical application. That being said, they are convenient to do at home with a not so serious exercise. Trust me, at this stage, there will be increased muscle mass.

LOL I'm so out of shape my crap workout two days ago has me pretty stiff today actually! I was starting to feel it last night, so instead I opted to do some bicep curls instead of pushups. That way I'm at least doing something to burn some calories and gain some muscle mass.

Both those buyouts were by the same person though- John Riccitiello- just wearing different hats. He's hardly going to sell (himself, effectively) Bioware for less than he paid for it originally, if for no other reason than he'd get sued by Elevation Partners if he did so. Why would Elevation Partners sue him for selling it to himself for less than he paid originally, while Electronic Arts happily lets him sell it to himself for more than it's worth? For a company that's very much chastised for so diligently caring about only the bottom line, the rest of the boardroom seems pretty stupid. How much is BioWare valued at, at the moment? Or even at the time of sale? As far as I know, EA is still involved with the process, given that BioWare is in fact making the game. And BioWare is a division of Electronic Arts. BioWare wouldn't work on the game if they didn't get any revenue out of it. Even if SWTOR is precisely as popular as WOW is, even with Lucasarts' cut, EA will still be rolling in a ****load of money. I have no doubts that EA (and BioWare and Lucasarts) would be very happy with those numbers.

The important thing to understand is that, as you sit and judge the stupid people for being stupid, they're also standing around judging you, the stupid person, as stupid.

Ahem...does it count that I do my sets while I hit "End Turn" in Empire Total War?

^^ This I agree with.

It certainly seems to be a real big sticking point. Especially in light of your concerns about what you're player is supposed to do while surrounded by enemies. I'd wager it doesn't even make the game more difficult, although that'd probably only be true for the first games, because the designers obviously felt it'd be a concern because they intentionally made the AI retarded in RE4, presumably to compensate. I guess in a way I'd consider the combat mechanic detrimental to RE4, if only because it made the developers feel it was necessary to have hostiles conveniently slow down and let you shoot them in the face. Resident Evil 4 was way too easy IMO. That, and I really preferred the zombie angle, rather than infected angle. Right. Because all those people just love buying ****ty games. You'll get some that slip through the system, but I think you'll find more often than not, games that sell really well are probably actually pretty good games. It's not a hard and fast rule, especially with more niche style games. But I most certainly DO correlate a games success with the quality of the game. Even if I don't care for the game. But yeah, go ahead and say "you of all people," or some junk like that, and assume what thoughts I have. This would hardly be the first time I've made such a statement on these very boards (with you being on this board). You can tell yourself your lies to make yourself feel better and limit your cognitive dissonance, but if the combat system was any sort of signifciant detriment to the Resident Evil games, they would NOT have been so successful. Because sure as **** the game story and setting themselves are NOT that special.

We're stating that Resident Evil 5's (or any resident evil for that matter) shooting system doesn't detract from its gameplay experience either, so your point is irrelevant. So you're saying that moving while shooting would add nothing to RE5 or even detract from it? I don't think it would add nor detract from it. I think it's virtually irrelevant. I am more than able to enjoy the Resident Evil games with the current firing mechanism, and more than able to enjoy other games as well. The combat system in Resident Evil has never been an issue for me. The one "plus" that Resident Evil's combat system has for me is simply that it's different than every other game out there. But this "plus" is pretty insignificant that I really don't care about it. I'm getting the feeling you just suck at Resident Evil about now... If you don't like it, don't play it. It's as simple as that. if Resident Evil's combat mechanic is so detrimental to the game, how come the game franchise has had so much success that it's spawned several sequels, and even movie spinoffs, as well as other spinoffs like Dino Crisis? I guess those game buyers just like playing with the most unintuitive complicated game controls, in spite of all the other better designed and superior combat systems in other survival horror games.

We're stating that Resident Evil 5's (or any resident evil for that matter) shooting system doesn't detract from its gameplay experience either, so your point is irrelevant.

So you are more qualified? I'm just stating my opinion based on my knowledge past acquisitions and reading articles etc. I'm stating my opinion based on precedent. BioWare alone had two significant buyouts in recent years for large amounts of cash. Writing it off as being "oh, well that's overpriced" is a bit convenient. Specifically, I can't say if Electronic Arts over OR underpaid for BioWare, because quite frankly I'm not qualified to make that claim. But I'm sure that those articles you read were all of top notch quality. Ah you're right. My point still stands.

I won't dispute that Resident Evil maintains its mechanic to prevent simple running and gunning, however, given games typically don't even feature the mechanic you describe (turning your head and raising your arm), you're effectively stating that pretty much every game makes an arbitrary decision to either turn your head, or raise your hand. So you're stating that the inability to turn your head, as well as raise your hand, is an arbitrary decision by Sir-Tech to make Jagged Alliance 2 more challenging?

For treadmill running I think you're supposed to put it on an incline to compensate to simulate an outdoor run.

When the horde is near you, you fire off a shot or two, and run back. It's what I've done in every single Resident Evil game. You do have control over your character. There's no reason for you to stand completely still and just let the horde swamp you, unless you've ended up backing yourself into a corner.

Well, then it must not be true then. What with your exquisite knowledge of the value of companies and so forth. I'll admit, I always have been surprised that you aren't spending more time elsewhere given your business acumen.

Well, you could say that they are both arbitrary limitations in controlling your character to artificially increase the difficulty/scary factor. I'd actually wager that it's decidedly less arbitrary than CrashGirl's analogy. At least the not moving and firing a gun has some basis in reality. Just because other games let you run and gun and shoot people in the eye from 4000m out with a small caliber pistol. This sounds similar to the FPS whiners complaining that you couldn't run off the edges in GoldenEye back in the N64 days. Boo-freaking-hoo. Complain about the bad guys suddenly moving in slow motion before they get to you sure, but because you have to actually stop and shoot? Meh, that never hindered my gameplay experience. Heck, even in most FPS games I find myself stopping before I shoot, because the good ones woefully penalize my accuracy for not doing so. But yeah, I guess for the people that aren't good at those games, the ability to still pull off lucky shots because you were able to shoot while circle strafing and bunny hopping is a desired feature. But I suppose a woefully inaccurate, bullet wasting, ineffective option would have made people happier?

EA paid 3/4 of a billion for JUST BioWare.

Though I agree with Hell Kitty that it is a dev choice, I do agree with Kaftan as well. Crippling the controls intentionally is as bit wonky. It would be like saying you can't turn your head and move your hands at the same time. OK, sure, it's a gameplay mechanic that will make the game harder, but it is also fairly arbitrary and dumb. I can't support it. At the same time, that's grossly different than being able to move and fire a gun.

I knew I had lost a lot of strength and conditioning the past few months by doing, well, nothing, so I used this as an excuse to get back into it. My numbers are appalling, but a start: Pushups: 30 Situps: 32 Run: it was 12 PM so no run.

My boss said he gave it a try in full coop survival and had an absolute blast doing so.

Not from an objective point of view. Marvel has a ton of super popular licenses for characters in comics, movies, games, toys, etc. EA makes video games. Talking from a money perspective. Inconsequential is probably not the right word, but "less ridiculously expensive" is more what I was looking for.

I'm guessing this would make the Marvel buyout seem inconsequential.

Sweet, hopefully those blogs don't make Matthew decide he shouldn't interact with the community anymore.

Meh, it's a deliberate game mechanic. Like the Doom 3 flashlight, which I actually liked. I enjoyed having to decide between whether or not I could see my enemy, or make effective attacks against it. See, it's not hard to defend something. If you like it, it's a bit easier to defend it.

Say what?