alanschu

There was a kid that was almost in tears in the stands that they showed during the game. After the post game interviews, there were still fans sitting dejected in the stands.

So you'd consider an unstable nuclear warhead, that could literally go off at any time it wants to, regardless of when or where (like in the Silo), with no arming codes and no arming triggers to be just as safe as one that was perfectly stable, with zero chance of detonation outside of its target, 187 highly uncrackable arming codes, with a flawless arming trigger to be equally safe?

Fun fun fun

Well, the last time I saw that movie I wouldn't have even known who Ben Affleck was, so ^_^

I was afraid he'd think I was agreeing with him.

Hahaha. If Edmonton wins I'd still give it to Pronger. But wowee what a serious. Saturday can't come soon enough!

Are you just being obtuse for the sake of stirring things up?

Because in order for people to build with that content, they'll have to buy it. But how many people will buy something to create content, with no one really willing to play it (upon release)? People aren't going to buy content expansions without having quality modules created with that content. The only way to really work around this is to make the content "expansions" (for lack of a better word) would then be to make them cheap. The only thing is, creating content isn't cheap (it's arguably one of the most expensive part of game development now). In terms of finding ways to invest their money, a company would probably have a better ROI simply by making another game. At best, maybe they make a game with that toolset that's post-apocolyptic. Since full-fledged expansions typically don't sell anywhere near the amount of copies as the original game does, I can't expect content (which doesn't really have any incentive for a non-content creator to buy) to sell any better. Except that I'd expect you to have to sell at a lower price, with less volume of sales.

Was a post deleted from this thread?

For the record I enjoyed Gothic 2 as well. Who's the other one?

It's separated from the "safety" issue as far as I'm concerned.

It's possible to make a safer anything. The discussion was never about whether or not it was a good use of resources.

Here's another one pixies.

I never could play those 3 people against each other though... :"> Although you can make quite a lot of progress through stealth and diplomacy skills in the mansion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You need really high social skills to be able to really do anything with the 3 people.

I'd answer. But I enjoy the game enough to play through it again the exact same way I already played it. So I figured my POV is moot.

I really did enjoy it as well. I believe I got it for Christmas a month after it came out. Since I had already upgraded my computer (Half-Life fanboy!), no problems playing it I loved the soundtracks from the Santa Monica and Hollywood bars.

"SE---GA"

Giovanni is fun. I found the game got a bit too combat oriented towards the end as well.

I'm not sure how lucrative "toolset content" would be.

I don't really remember. I do remember doing it though. I think I might have had to throw stuff.

That one forest on the south side is insane!

I'm playing the whooping-and-hollering game of the emotional roller coaster that is the hockey playoffs!

Wowee. I guess that answers the question about whether or not there's a no man's land. I had a feeling your solo squad surrounded by my full platoon was in a world of hurt. I'm pretty sure our armored cars both took each other out too! Too bad about some of my vehicles. I think I lost 4 that round, including a brand new StuG H Those rocket artillery blasts are great with their 36 tubes. I wonder what the likelihood of this battle being called for morale reasons is compared to the last one.

That was a great game both ways. Tons of action. Wowee. Sweeter that our team wins

OMG WE WIN WIN WINN AAHAHAHHHAH YAAYAH!H!