random n00b
-
Posts
629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by random n00b
-
-
Yeah, I was actually agreeing with you.
So, since adhering to the intent of the Amendment, rather than the letter, would be insane (I don't think they had RPG-7s and SAWs in mind when it was passed), what's the point anymore? It's obvious that the right to possess firearms as a sort of "deterrent" against a would-be oppressive government is obsolete.
I guess that, nowadays, the "point" is simply that guns in general have become just another consumer good, and cracking down on that would be Bad for Business...
-
"Gee, I wish we had one of 'em doomsday machines!" - Gen. "Buck" Turgidson.
-
Yeah, way to go Laozi. Encourage him to post some more images, see if he can crash the boards.
-
Hahaha, most people here seem to have fired many more different guns than me - and I was in a SO outfit receiving training for some time. :shakehead:
Anyhow:
L65 (2-man, short 60 mm mortar)
Most of those fired during the SO course. If I had completed training, I'd have been trained for use (and maintenance) of the USP and MP5SD5 as well.
-
wait whateven hardcoreish titles, such as IL-2, making the jump. -
Um, isn't this a case of individual stupidity? I haven't seen any official action (not even the "ombudsman's" reaction) in this case... and I doubt there'll be any. Why did this get on BBC, again?
-
WOOHOO!!
Moar goalz would have been nice, though.
-
"Assault weapons" are not assault rifles, as far as this discussion is concerned. They are just some semi auto weapons that "look militaristic". And anyway, assault rifles alone aren't very good at making a credible threat out of a civilian militia at any rate - "destructive devices", which are already heavily restricted (or banned altogether in some places) would be. Is there anyone pushing for the freedom to own a M72 LAW or .50 M2 Browning? Heh...But I'm saying that there's a direct contradiction. If the purpose of the weapons is to combat the State then assault weapons are an absolute necessity, not a luxury. -
Didn't we have this conversation already...?
Where? In these boards? Certainly not in this particular FO3 thread. And yeah, some of the stuff they have announced is patently retarded. But I'm hoping the game will have some other redeeming qualities. It's also entirely possible that I'm in for a big disappointment, but that's beside the point.Really? I can understand how you might draw that conclusion, but I've been reading a lot of reactions about FO3, and I think as much as there is pointless naysaying, there is a lot more reasonable argument based on 'particular features that have been revealed'. Such as those stupid, stupid two guns (one of them was psychic remember?), the ghoul that fires radiation at people and heals with radiation, the nuclear exploding cars which even explode in a chain reaction, the selection of music, Dogmeat, the lot we have seen of VATS, the BOS backstory, etc.
You know, thinking about it, I'm finding it pretty paradoxical that some pan the game based on admittedly incomplete experience, and not six pages ago, holism was brought up as an explanation of the greatness of other Fallout installments.And definitely, we haven't seen much of some of the most important things, like dialogue. But I think there have been plenty of 'features' mentioned that people have talked about, and used them to form provisional assessments.Anyway, yes. I too wish they would release more of the juicy stuff (PC-NPC interactions specifically), the absence of which worries me more than portable nuke launchers or chain-reaction cars. There's very little info about, not enough to make an informed decision. But some folks have already made up their minds. Oh well.
Yes, well. I didn't mean *you* specifically. I'm not sure of the value of an analogy with ME, since it's not the game itself that you are against, but a part of the software package. I haven't played ME either, and interestingly, the only thing I can think of that would stop me from trying FO3 (save for a discouraging demo version, ain't gonna happen) is a copy-protection scheme similar to the one of ME...Really? I still haven't bought Mass Effect. Won't, ever, until the DRM is fixed. I agree with you that most people will go out and buy the game anyway, but as I say, there's really no point lying down and making it even easier. -
That's why I answered to your post with "explain", and the "jumping to conclusions" thing was in response to Xard's general overview of the game as a whole. So yeah, my comment was pretty justified. Don't be so quick to point and laugh next time, RP.Talking about the feel of an image =/= talking about the feel of a game.Again, explain yourself?
The general rule I always use, not only with games, is not to make general ASSessments of stuff I know very little about. Interestingly, it's not the particular features that have been revealed that are discussed the most, as you no doubt can see, but how the game is going to be "Oblivion with guns", and how it fails to "capture the essence of Fallout", and some other equally vague comments.You keep saying that rn, and you probably explained yourself before, but I still don't really get that. For me, what we know is nowhere near enough to make an informed conclusion. But I don't know anybody who's doing that. What we know is plenty to make provisional, reasonably intelligent guesses. I mean, we can get technical and bring out the "we won't know 'till we know" stuff, but is that really a general law that you would employ so stringently all the time? I rather suspect that what itches you the wrong way is how negative reactions seem so formulaic, immediate and final - I know I'm guilty of that as well, but let me assure you that I do consider all this very provisional. I am always happy to be mistaken when the game comes out and turns out really well.All that energy wasted in hating something you don't know, and in the end, you won't be able to stop yourself from purchasing it and playing it and all... it doesn't really bother me, but as I said, I find it funny.
And I'm not even going to touch the child porn thing.
I aim to please.You should become a political or a social commentator on TV. Your ways of starting an argument are marvellous
-
Which is even more tragicomical.
-
Talk about jumping to conclusions. How come that the whole birth business, as well as the first steps quest, kid bullying, VATS, original character creation process and all (and that's just from this preview in particular, I just skimmed), "reduce the character's pathos" to HW toting and explosions going on in the background? Sure, the game does seem to have those things from the pics, but the game is not JUST that.Read previews, watch pics, hear developer brain farts and that's what you're going to conclude
You know, it's funny. Because you guys are trying so hard to mischaracterize a game that you know very little about (so that your prejudices seem justified), but in the end, you're all going to end up playing it.
-
Explain.That screams vapid, generic action game where the characters' pathos are reduced to carrying big guns while an explosion is going off in the background. Kinda like Tomb Raider porn but with orcs. -
WOOHOO!!
You know, Aragones' decisions are indeed controversial, and even over here, he's drawn a lot of flak for them. Everyone seems to know how to do things better than him, but he's the only coach that's been able to accomplish anything worth mentioning...The forced sub of Villa did hurt Spain as Torres has been a 'nearly man' for all of the tournament - but it got Fabregas on early, which is what won them the game ultimately. Aragones has no idea how he's supposed to use *any* of Xavi, Cesc and Iniesta, so in the first half they were all stranded, but they sorted it out in half time with Cesc sitting back as he wants, Iniesta coming inside more, Xavi making the occasional forward run - elements which produced the first two goals. Marcos Senna was excellent again, and along with the other midfielders really choked off the Russians.Luck or wisdom, I can't make up my mind...
-
Bah. Not interested unless it's a deathmatch.
-
Boring, even when trolling.Sorry, what was that? My brain does this thing where it thinks about something that's actually meaningful whenever a libertarian speaks.I've sparred with far better than you, so you'll have to do better than to assign a tag to me to discredit what I'm saying. Address my point if what I'm saying is so wrong, instead of looking like a brainless parrot.
How about you don't use semantics as a shield, as is your custom, for once? *You* brought "choice" to the thread. It's increasingly obvious that you don't know the meaning of the words you throw around, but that's not my fault.How about you muse about what constitutes free will in another thread.
Who's twisting your words? Again, you brought "fault", to the discussion, regarding homosexuality, as well as "choice". The bottom line is that you wouldn't apply either word to being black or gray-eyed, while at the same time, you have been unable to provide any measure of proof to your proposition that "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice", or the "general agreement" around it.Stop twisting my words; the point is that it's not a 'fault' at all, and trying to claim it's offensive to call it a lifestyle choice is itself offensive insofar as it implies homosexuality is only 'acceptable' because it is genetic. This is also exactly the reason the gay people I know get riled up about it. -
h8 multi-posting, so I'm going to address a lot of posts here
A basic requirement, perhaps. A potential ace-card for success, I'm not so sure. I don't know many people (zero, actually) that purchase games based on "ooh, awesome graphics!" or "aah, incredible physics!". It's the general expansion of the industry that provides products with more and more advanced technology and something else, that wins over the consumers. San Andreas, for instance, was as much a success of PR as it was of game design, but it was not technologically ground-breaking by any means, even though it's certainly more advanced than games published 5 years ago. Perhaps we are arguing the same, but I think it's easier to sell games by developing gameplay and other aspects than technology itself.Why doesn't it make sense? Without going too much into it, much of both technical and stylistic aspects of video games have become lumped into one big 'progress' package, and a certain amount of it is expected of every new game nowadays. Meaning not only a 'basic requirement' to have, I don't know, x amount of pixels, but also gimmicky physics, bloom, etc. There is a cultivation of audience desire in the sense that a certain 'touch base' of technology has become a basic requirement and a potential ace-card for market success. This is the case in every mid/late capitalist industry, and it should be no surprise that it's coming fully into force in this one.
Counter-Strike and any other competitive online-based game prove you wrong. Challenge (and overcoming it) is fun.While there is certainly a feeling of accomplishment in being good at a difficult game (I can beat the first three levels of Metal Slug without dying! Woo!), most people who play video games do not belong to the small market share who will do that.
This is true, unfortunately. Most people prefer to play the latest stupid **** game to a good chess match, and it also explains why the latest Forgotten Realms POS sells far more than Crime and Punishment or Thus Spake Zarathustra. Not much can be done about it, really. The success of Hollywood, adapted to games.Face it: video games cost too much to produce for them to make games for you, person who posts regularly on an internet forum about your favorite video game company. Video games are made for people who play video games a couple hours a week. They aren't designed for people to put a whole lot of energy into before any rewards are reaped. Because most people who buy video games don't have a whole lot of energy to do that, and will just give it back to GameStop.
That would be fine, if "higher difficulty" didn't mean "increased AI cheating".Just play on higher difficulty settings, Christ.
The first Rainbow Six games were fairly realistic, and they were fun. Also, I like realistic flight sims (IL-2? Argh!). I can see how that's not a mainstream view, though.As to "why is realism boring," maybe it's because they actually tried making the game realistic and it was boring?
I was merely referring to the increase of published games per year.ARe you saying games offer more currently? Or have the potential to offer more?
I don't know if it's your sincerity that's taken me aback, or your cynicism.Graphics are not ephemeral. Humans are visual creatures, there is a reason you play games instead of reading books and it probably isn't the interactivity and it definitely isn't the story. -
Drtaks is fighting an uphill battle with reason as his sole ally! Watch out!
Yeah. That's why you are an adult, and are assumed to have freedom of choice. Planning on turning your brain to goo with cocaine? It's nobody's business. That's the failure of universal healthcare. You gotta (should) earn what you have. And I live in a country with universal healthcare (even for those that *don't* pay taxes). Go figure.But hey, I value living "well" on cocaine and ecstasy, why don't you let me go do that instead of living my life? And maybe you should stop getting on my rag about smoking because, hey, it's my life and I'll smoke if I want to.
Show me this "general agreement", and I'll try to stop this insane laughter thing I get going on every time I read what you posted. Genetics and environment? Perhaps. Choice? Try again.And homosexuality is generally agreed to be an equal measure of lifestyle choice and genetics, so you can all stop your knee-jerk reactions now.
No doubt they take offense, given the condescension implied. Picture some black dude to whom you said "it ain't your fault bubba, it's your genetics". You'd be lucky not to get punched in the face. "Fault" in this case is by itself demeaning. What was that about moral high-horses, again?Edit: And heck, the fact that anybody would be arrogant enough to deny that homosexuality is half life-style choice has obviously never spent any time around bisexual or homosexual acquaintances/friends but is rather trying to parade about on some sort of moral high-horse. Here's a clue: many find it offensive or at least ignorant to go around defending them with "it's not your fault; it's your genetics". -
I call 'em as I see 'em...I don't believe in this philosophy for a second. What you are talking about is an interactive movie. I want to be challenged by a game, not become a semi-active participant in a computer generated story.
Yes, and that's why I didn't say that greater technology implies greater immersion. I said that advances in technology allow for greater immersion. Take a look at games with such compelling atmospheres as STALKER, AvP2, or VtM:B, and tell me how the same effect could be achieved in 16 colours, 2D, PC speaker. Thus the "ability" part of my statement. Just as with any other resource, it can be used well or not.With the development of technology, the ability to immerse the player in a narrative has increasedThe development of technology has widened the various methods available to us for immersion, certainly, but technology = immersion is definitely untrue, and it would be just as nonsensical as 'games need to evolve'.
The cultivation of a market for technology in games by and of itself makes no sense - it's the expansion of the game industry as a whole. I don't see how that is a problem, seeing how games offer has increased so much. Sure, very few games truly shine, but to me that makes no difference - I still get one or two great games per year, maybe, I only have to dig deeper.Even worse, with more technology and the cultivation of a market for that technology comes an economic obligation to use technology.Another victory for capitalism!
-
I'm dissapointed in you, comrade!Never heard of it, but sounds intriguing.Don't pass up this chance to try it. Beware lazy foot-draggerism, comrade!
Haha, and it gets even better. They want to combine that with replayability value!Yes, we are going downt he path of ultimate, inconsequential indulgence - a trend in all commodified experience that is reflected in this industry. Choose everything, get everything, all at once. Obsidian did seem to buck that idiocratic spiral with their games, at least a little bit, though. -
I don't see how realism ties in with the general decline in the challenge of games. It wasn't realism that made 2D sidescrollers hard.I know it's been mentioned before.. but why? I just don't get why people think realism is boring. Why do people need to fight teenage girls with twin handguns to be able to have fun? Is it really that much of a chore to have to load your weapon once in a while? And is it really the goal of every game out there to handhold the player to make sure everyone and his grandmother sees the ending?I remember a time when you felt special because you had finished a game. You had to learn the game, devote time to the game, overcome impossible odds, use your brains and skills, and sometimes not even that was enough to make you complete the game. Now you can't fail. Games are 6-8 hours long and the developers are making sure everyone gets to see the ending!
Perhaps the attempt at creating realism coupled with the inability to code a *true* AI to challenge the player has resulted in generally dumb enemies that make some games easier, but I think it's the philosophy of design that's changed fundamentally. You don't spend hours watching the same scene of a movie over and over, and the same for a paragraph in a book. With the development of technology, the ability to immerse the player in a narrative has increased, and with the importance of plot closure taking precedence over gameplay itself, it's only natural that games are intended to be finished once started.
That however, can't explain why every game needs to be "streamlined" (dumbed down to hell), though, and that pisses me.
-
Are we adults or not?I can't remember if it was Sand or Volourn that comes up with the "it's really your own fault for not controlling yourself' argument every time this kind of stuff comes up, but really - it's so obviously not that simple. On one extreme you can't chain-smoke for 20 years and then sue the cigarette companies for millions of dollars, because you have to, you know, make your own decisions. But on the other extreme you can't say it's okay to sell raunchy goat porn in Times Square, because you know, you don't have to buy it. Desire is always cultivated and it's naive in the extreme to think that we are completely rational human beings making logical choices unaffected by whatever. The line between a healthy society and a sterile one differs for everyone else, but is there really any weight to the case that McDonalds can do whatever it wants? -
Hahaha, premium flamebaiting!
-
Only one as sharp-minded and well-groomed as yourself could possibly have seen through my cover!
Avatar topic
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
That is beyond awesome. I wonder what level of protection it affords, compared to the tried-and-true tinfoil hat.
I'm saving that one...