Hell Kitty

I love you, alanschu.

Exactly what about what I posted is not true at all? We aren't driven by our need for food and shelter and sex? We don't compete for these things differently now than we have in the past? The laws and punishments of society don't have any influence on how we act? You can't ignore reality just because it doesn't fit into your pessimistic world view. I never said we were angels. This seems to be your entire problem, the apparent belief that civilization and evolution means some form of perfection. Civilization doesn't mean we don't sometimes act uncivilized. Also, it isn't true that human kill for no reason. There is always a reason. That reason might not be obvious, it might seem stupid, you might not be able to understand it, but there's always a reason.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that the sky is blue. This is all wrong. Both eating and breeding are necessary for survival (though the latter isn't necessary for the survival of the individual) and directly comparable because they are things we are willing to fight for. You speak of our "basic instincts" as though they are some kind of urge we must find the will to suppress, which is nonsense. Food, shelter, sex - what drives and will always drive the human animal, what makes us human, and mankind will always be willing to fight for them if necessary. Where once we might have relied solely on violence by killing our neighbor, stealing his cave and his food, and taking his woman against her will, now we compete with our peers for a promotion so we can can buy the best clothes and cars and home, eat at the best restaurants and attract the best mate. We still fight, we will always fight, but thanks to the social, cultural, and technological advances of our civilization how we fight has changed. The laws and punishments that come with being a part of a civilized society mean that resorting to violence is no longer the winning formula it once might have been.

We aren't trying, we simply are more civilized. Changes in society and culture and technology prove this. That's what civilization is. It doesn't stop us from being human, and that we can act selfishly, of stupidly or violently doesn't mean humanity as a whole isn't more civilized now than in the past. We don't "cave in" to our basic instincts. Choosing to eat when I'm hungry is not "caving in". Do I need to refuse to eat in order to be seen as civilized?

I agree with everything Hurlshot posted. Has anyone played the demo of JAZZ, the game formerly known as JA3 (or JA3D or whatever)?

Stargate? Realistic? Those two words don't go together.

If he didn't have access to a gun he would have just used some other object, like an axe or a spoon or something. Random object massacres happen all the time it's just that the liberal media doesn't do reports on them.

Oh go on, you know you want to.

Hey, where did my post about Dexter go? Anyway, I've watched all of Season 2 and I'm not really sure how I feel about the character now. I really looking forward to season 3, provided it avoids the craptitude of the latest novel.

So you can imagine actions being performed even when they aren't shown, they happen instantly, but you can't imagine near misses? You can't imagine a complete and full health regen over a period of seconds but you can imagine a complete and full health regen as soon as you touch a health kit? It's not a realism issue, it's an immersion one. But that's the thing about immersion, a feature is only immersive if you like it, and when you like it you're more willing to fill in the blanks or imagine things that don't actually occur. Health packs feel real to you, to me both systems feel fake but I don't have an issue with either so they have no effect on immersion for me. As was pointed out earlier these games aren't military simulators, they're playable action movies. My pet hate immersion killer is a hud that tries to give an in-game reason for it's existence. The ui exists to give me, the player, information, it doesn't need to exist for the character. I prefer my games not try to pretend they aren't games. And you're wrong about your character violently wretching back from being hit big time in 2 & 4. I just loaded them and the screen shakes a bit, but it doesn't feel like more than a flesh wound. I'd like to see something like MGS3, where you needed specific items to heal specific injuries. Of course this would only work in a game in which survival is a major component, not FPS which constantly has you in combat.

Damn straight. I don't get why people accuse businesses of being greedy because heaven forbid they want to make money, especially concerning luxury items, yet fail to see how greedy they are being themselves by accusing the company of taking from them something that was never theirs. When you buy a game you get what's on the disc, you don't earn the right to any and all content they might have made during the production of the game.

Oh I thought you mean it was ripping off a movie or another game. Heh. I don't understand how you think running over a health kit feels more like you are bandaging yourself, but then maybe you're so talented that you can run around shooting people while simultaneously bandaging serious wounds. Do you have four arms? Are you Wolverine? Both systems feel like magic to me. Some dude on another forum had an interesting way to look at a regenerating health system - when the screen turns red or blurs or whatever a particular game does, those are near misses, the only shot that hits is the one that kills you.

I played the demo and agree with everything Tale posted.

You can do that in CoD 1, it's just that the gaping chest wound wouldn't close itself up until you run over a first aid kit. It's not a realism issue, as health that regenerates when running over a box or pressing a button is no more real as health that regenerates automatically after a few seconds, and as such the fact that it's a military shooter is irrelevant. Oh, and what did you mean when you said the US campaign was a complete rip-off? A rip-off of what?

Why do you assume this DLC was content that was originally meant as part of the game but taken away and held back in a greedy attempt at getting more money, and not content that was made specifically as a mini expansion pack?

Why? Whereas the sense of entitlement you have is just peachy.

Season 1 of Dexter, moving on to season 2.

u want 2 dumb down the english language? What if they could coopt something shorter and snappier. Like 'Nat' or something from their own languages. It's hardy dumbing down. It's just making politically correct speech more practically correct. Indian, American Indian or Native American. They're all accepted terms. If you honestly think anything longer than 6 letters (indian) is too much to "force" on people, then you must have a problem with most of the english language. Removing the ive American from Native American is the definition of dumbing down. Changing words so they are shorter and snappier can only lead to this. Being anti-politically correct is as obnoxious as being politically correct.

....surely this comment should, at least, raise the cynic's eyebrow. Consider my eyebrow raised. I also don't feel any more sorry for this or any other bomber, but then I never bought into the condescending stereotype of folks with downs as being a bunch of angels.

u want 2 dumb down the english language?

Wow. If anyone was going to be revealed as a bot I would have picked DR.

I actually agree with this. My stance that there isn't enough to the arguments he's making is only in relation to Pidescos belief that more harsher reviews would increase innovation in the industry. As reviews they're fine, but take away the fun and the points he's making aren't new, they've been made by other reviews or gamers or developers. I wouldn't want to him to swap vinegar for honey, but then I don't think his goal is to change the industry any more than any other reviewer. The harshness isn't unique, and it isn't why people take more notice of his reviews, it's the humor and delivery and vinegar, and I'd hate to see people copy that because then it would just make that review style boring. The real question, as Nick_i_am pointed out, is whether harsh reviews can translate into lost sales. A review being right if you agree with it and wrong if you don't can apply just as much to developers as gamers. If Random Developer X thinks his design is the best thing ever, and has the fans and sales that agree with him, why would he change? Gabe Newell, for instance, isn't interested in making non-linear games because he believes a player should be able to experience everything the game has to offer in one play through, and many, many gamers are obviously happy with this. Are reviews really so powerful that they can change the way gamers think? I think innovation is something that happens by accident. A developer comes up with a game and if something about it hasn't been done before then it's innovative. It's something that comes from a desire to do something that just happens to be new, rather than a need to do something new because the old is getting harsher reviews.

Yeah, you should just be able to start the game at level 50. This "leveling up" **** is just a waste of time. When I pay good money for a game, I ought to be able to just go straight to the last level, none of this "play through the whole game" bull****.

Yes. They aren't terribly exciting, but they don't deserve all the complaints. Something I like about Dead Rising is that it doesn't go for the bleak art style of the typical zombie/horror game. It looks like a mall in the real world, rather than a mall in a horror game. Way to go against the trend dude, this is a thread for graphics whores. Pretty graphics don't drag down framerates anyway, poorly made graphics or graphics too advanced for your system do.

That's what I'm saying. More reviewers should harsher. I think you misread "not enough to them." as "not enough of them." What exactly is it in his reviews that you think could change the industry if more reviews said the same thing? Would Bioware change their successful formula if they received enough not-quite-so-positive reviews? Do negative reviews really have that much of an impact on sales? Last I heard Kane & Lynch made bucketloads of cash and a sequel is on the way.