alanschu

When deciding to pass on the genes?

I call them fanatics too.

That would certainly explain the large amount of children that don't suffer from ADD.

You want him to explain his sense of humour?

Because my shoe and my **** are about the same size? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Odd. It's only censored once in this post. Someone should let Guildmaster know "

Why is S-H-O-E censored?

Jefferson was officially cancelled though, and has been "around" longer. So I give the edge to Ramza.

You underestimate the isolationist frame of mind that the US had. It's why many countries consider the start of WW2 to be the invasion of Poland, while the US considers the start of WW2 to be December 7th, 1941. Until then, it was "Europe's War." Unlikely. I've never seen anything that indicated that Hitler's Lebensraum involved the United States. He was content with ignoring the United Kingdom. He held his forces back to allow the evacuation of Dunkirk happen, in a show of good faith to the British, in hopes that he could agree to peace with them. He knew that the possibility of conquering the British Isle was virtually impossible, which is why they dropped Operation Sealion and tried to take the UK out of the war indirectly....primarily through the Battle of the Atlantic, as well as an attempt to bomb them into submission with the Battle of Britain. Also not necessarily true. Many of the ships destined for the Pacific Fleet (i.e. the new Carriers and Battleships) were just recently commissioned and still in the Atlantic and the Carribean, and hadn't gone through the Panama Canal yet. Even if he did know of the attack, it doesn't mean he could have done anything to stop the inevitability of it. Evacuating all of the ships would have compromised any intelligence advantage the US might have had, as it would be an indicator to Japan that their communications were intercepted. It would have also caused more important targets (like the giant Fuel Depot nearby that was absolutely essential to any naval and air operations in the Pacific, and arguably way, way, WAY more important than any of the ships in the harbour. Losing ANY of the aircraft carriers would have severely compromised the effectiveness of the Pacific Fleet, much worse than the loss of obsolete battleships and picket ships. War is a dirty business, and lives are sacrificed. Operations that have zero chance of success are planned in an attempt to feint the opponent and help ensure strategic success. For instance, the Soviets sent their men to be slaughtered in the Battle of Kursk. In doing so the Germans achieved an operational victory, while at the same time pretty much ensured total strategic defeat.

I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that.

well of course they knew he'd react dat way but it was still funny. also i saw something very unexpected and it scared the **** outta me. so it makes it even funnier when i see it happen to other people <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You would know this from the video how?

Another interesting point.

No, I think that New Reno would still be rated M, unless they started actually showing the sex. Which is unnecessary IMO, and adds nothing to the game. I also don't think graphics has much to do with it at all. If Fallout 2 had uncensored sex scenes, I suspect it'd have been rated AO. Violent acts of any kind will not garner the AO rating IMO, even if the ESRB says that "prolonged scenes of intense violence" is categorized under it. I wouldn't consider the killing of a kid to be a prolonged scene of intense violence (I'm thinking they are trying to cover S&M acts with that statement, intense torture and whatnot). And the sexual content is not graphic (i.e. you don't explicitly see any sex). You can have sex in many games now (heck, Leisure Suit Larry wasn't rated AO) that aren't AO. Gothic II (rated M) even has a quasi-softcore scene where you can actually see two people in bed having sex, but the whole screen is kind of blurred out and whatnot, and you certainly don't see anything. It's also not interactive (which I think may be the kicker).

I just had the impression that, if someone (and not just Hurlshot) has a hard time keeping their attention on a game longer than 30 hours, then ADD has something to do with it. I didn't think you were trying to be insulting. Though it doesn't necessarily mean people don't take it that way. I remember a friend of mine was struggling in English 101, so he went to the teacher for help. His teacher recommended some excellent ESL (English Second Language courses) that would help him out. It would probably help a lot, except that English was my friend's native language. His last name was Le Bray, so she probably assumed he was French. I'm sure she didn't mean to insult him, but he felt pretty crappy being recommended to an ESL course when he's spoken English his whole life. I also can imagine that it is not that uncommon if people without ADD could have problems sticking with a game for 30+ hours. Extenuating circumstances can pull a person away from a game for a while (such things as lives, kids, work, etc.). I know I usually have a hard time jumping back into a game after being away for a while. I never finished Morrowind because of that, and I'm having a hard time getting back into Oblivion because of my vacation.

It's a bit presumptuous to think that someone that isn't interested in a 30 hour game suffers from ADD.

It's only abusive if they knew that the kid would react that way.

I have a feeling that, even if every retailer stocked games with AO ratings, they still wouldn't be the best selling games out there.

Oh?

You are likely a man and Elisha Cuthbert IS hot.

Comic book man would be proud!

I think it'll be 25-30....but I'm with Llyranor. I have played games that are 20 hours and are much more fun than games that are 40 hours.

THat's the one after Surrep's.

This thread is still alive?

Only if whoever reviews for the German company cares about the "hidden" content. Only the ESRB has made this kind of statement.

A long ways to go to catch Hextall.

Hahaha classic.