Orogun01

Is this sort of thing legal?

Oh that's evil. Can it be proved without access to their books?

Well that all depends on the Superman writer and continuity. Generally though, I would say Bruce Banner. IIRC, a kryptonian's intelligence increased steadily under a yellow sun, so Clark was a genius in certain continuity. Banner has always been depicted as extremely intelligent, and is on par with Tony Stark and Reed Richards, who are considered two of the smartest people on the planet. I'd say that he's smarter than Tony Stark but still somewhat lower than Pym and I don't think there is anyone who can match Reed's scientific knowledge. IDK what Superman has done intellectually, but I remember that delightful ark involving a depowered Bruce Banner with just his brains as a weapon. Too bad it didn't last long.

You know what, this Superman vs Hulk is an old argument. New question: Who's smarter Clark Kent or Bruce Banner?

Hulk?Sentry?DC vs Marvel? When did this thread got full of awesome? @Ametep: Did they ever say whether the Hulk's gamma radiation affected Superman in any way?

First thing I saw when I entered the classroom today was everyone huddled in front of a computer screen watching this video.

Well, I'm more relieved now that I found that the only friend I have in Boston is safe and all of his family & friends are as well. He lives 5 miles away from where the incident took place and during the course of the conversation I heard the sirens of passing fire trucks.

Exactly, but that safety net does exist and it the used game market which only profits the distributor. Instead of realizing a method to completely bypass these people who where undermining their profit, instead they try to dry customers from their bucks with DLCs. Funnily enough, no one ever mentions distributors as part of the problem.

It's actually pretty common for games to barely break even because of high production costs, Tomb Raiders is just one in a long line of games that are considered to be failures. Hell, Tomb Raider isn't even one of the most expensive games to develop, those are usually around 100 million and upwards. IMO, gaming saw a drastic change in 2005 and grew exponentially right around the time when recession began to hit. Consumer habits changed and games were a better alternative for entertainment, which is why for a while games seemed recession proof. In turn this attracted investors and the industry had one of the greatest grow spur that we have seen so far. Unfortunately publishers didn't know how to adapt to this change and thought only of maximizing profit without creating a safety net for games, to the point that companies where cannibalizing themselves.

Sure we can because they do. In the end it's up to consumer to say that graphics are good enough and force development onto other areas. It just so happen they never say that and given industry driven by release sales graphics have become absolutely vital. How? Not buy games with better graphics? Buy games with weaker graphics? How about just paying much less attention to it? Graphics are almost the whole reason why Nintendo has to go for casual players.Hardcore gamers are still laughing about how weak GPUs Wii and WiiU have. But how you show that you pay less attention to graphics? Leave games with good graphics in shelves? As otherwise companies try to sell you products that look like those that you previously bought or better, as it is easy to sell them. 'Hardcore' gamers laugh also how weak GPUs XO, PS3 and even PS4 have. But those aren't really hardcore gamers but gamers that like technically good graphics (that usually also need to look cool too). So just those players that buy graphic focused games and make noise about them in their social circles. So how you make these guys not to be intrested how good games look or even say that they look good enough, when some company make much better looking game (and there will probably always be someone who does so)? But the thing is, graphics sell better because you can't advertise gameplay, Demos do that but only after the game has grabbed attention. Also graphics are easier to develop than an engine that can simulate both high speed flight and zero gravity physics. Those things add to the development time and are used on a per project basis, graphics on the other hand are universal.

Gentlemen, you are all wrong. Publishers are not at fault because they are only involved in the business side of things, they just invest their capital and expect a reasonable return. Developers are not at fault because they are only doing the best they can with the available tools, the production cost for a AAA is high. It's not something that can be avoided if you want that level of quality. Gamers are not at fault because they are only asking for better quality for their buck, you cannot hold them responsible for the state of the industry since they have no direct influence in it. The problem is that game engines and 3D programs have become more complex in order to offset the increasing demand for better graphics, this has in turn increased development time, team sizes, and the amount of work to make a game release ready. It is not just a issue limited to the game industry, VFX studios are also stuck on the same rut where publishers try to offset development costs by outsourcing jobs overseas. 3D graphics seem to have hit a ceiling where they have become cost prohibitive. There may pass some time until newer engines overtake and change the way that games are produced.

First of all, you shouldn't have come here: Spoilers. Secondly, the story is not pretentious, it's just the same level of shallow we have come to expect from video game writing. The pretentious ones are the ones praising it for its story and the social issues it tackles. For them the mere representation of these issues is enough to call it a masterpiece. The game itself is pretty solid, just not the industry savior some people claim it to be.

Well, you sound a lot younger.

Whenever I hear that something requires me too have a prior understanding too enjoy it I just feel that's a cop-out for laziness or incompetence. I don't need to be a classically trained musician to enjoy Bach, I only need to like his music. I don't need a history degree to understand the themes in a game, they only need to be well presented and they weren't. Also, the first Bioshock didn't require you to have an understanding of Objectivism in order to show you what it was all about, you gained that understanding through the environment, the audio diaries and through the bosses. DeWitt is not a good foil as most of the events you describe take place before Infinite and the player has no reason to empathize with him. This is a major issue with game writing, where you a just presented with a situation bluntly designed to get a cheap emotional response and their usage is as crude as the developers poking you with a stick and telling "Come on! Feel something!. Why should the player care about events they have no knowledge of or participated in? Why should they care that Ana/Elizabeth is their daughter when they have spent most of the game ogling down her brassiere? The story didn't move in any way to support or establish these connections and instead it leaves up to the player. Ana/Elizabeth was a good foil until she became vicious and murderous, arguably the result of DeWitt's influence. By the end of the game she is making threats and has no problem killing you. Lastly, I know it wasn't directed at me but the way I understood it people only gained the memories and bleed through their noses when their alternate selves had died. The game wasn't really clear on that matter.

@Tagaziel: The game doesn't necessarily present you with another, more righteous alternative to act as a foil to Columbia. Their nemesis; The Vox Populi, is as bad as them, so it really flies off from the themes of racism and discrimination when the "anchors" for these ideas are trying to kill you. How are we suppose to empathize with someone that's shooting at you? The lack of overall consistency in the themes and the poor presentation is symptomatic of where the focus of the story was: Booker and Ana/Elizabeth, which ultimately proved disappointing as the ending completely broke the characters. Other themes are just there to serve a purpose within the game, which is to say that they are being used to define the characters but they lack depth in and of themselves

May I suggest Buddhism or Stoicism as alternatives to Alcoholism? You won't have as much fun but you'll probably live longer.

See this article as to why the game isn't as good as they claim: http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3733057.htm Disclaimer: I did enjoy the game, I think that the levels and their use of UDK was marvelous but I still consider it to have the symptoms of what it is a greater issue within this industry.

Because they were killed by Comstock, and instead transcended time and space to become transcendent quantum existences (kind of like the Tralfamadorians from Slaughterhouse Five, pay attention to what they say at the graveyard.) Again, it's not that there was one universe in the beginning, until Booker DeWitt got baptized, and then there were two, it's that there were always infinite parallel realities as is often suggested by cosmologists (hence the "infinite.") As has been stated (I think,) the game's story fundamentally stems from Robert Lutece's desire to fix the problem he and Rosalind created when they helped Comstock take Anna They existed in a material form before they were killed, specifically during the time that they helped Columbia ascend and they opened the portal. If killed then the events of Infinite would not had taken place. Also, unlike Slaughterhouse travel across multiple universes and times is done in a physical manner rather than through projection. Plus there is one glaring plot hole in the narrative, if Dewitt actually remembers selling Ana then that means that killing him won't serve any purpose since he is not the past version of himself and it wouldn't erase all the Annas/Elizabeths from existence. If he was the Dewitt meant to be Comstock, then when the Luteces bring him to Columbia that would had created a paradox that would had to solve itself by Dewitt dying or taking Comstock's place. The only plausible explanation would be if Dewitt was at some point in time where he hadn't fathered Anna, then killing him would erase the realities. But that alternative is not possible because of the mark on his hand. So why does killing Dewitt alters realities, why don't they ever get back to their original universe, and why there's more than one Dewitt at the lighthouses if ours was the root one? See my theory about crazy Annas/Elizabeths across realities murdering Dewitts for the answer.

In a sense, they would argue that it isn't right for only cisgendered people to be called "normal" hence the insult. They are a bunch of weirdoes setting up their own treehouse and telling us we can't play in it. Antagonistic, antisocial behavior doesn't exactly shout normal.

Why not kill the Luteces then? They are the ones responsible for Columbia and the portals into realities.

A bunch of versions of Elizabeth gather up to kill you, from points where she supposedly didn't know DeWitt identity. Ergo multiple versions of Elizabeth plot across realities to kill all Bookers (supported by the fact that you aren't the only Booker around the lighthouses). Also, she cannot possibly know the root Booker so her only chance is to kill all of them across realities until she gets the right one. So she an her alternate versions have been killing Bookers long before the events of Infinite. Conclusion: She is evil.

I wish there had been a choice to kill Elizabeth, she obviously was planning DeWitt's murder since the beginning and across multiple dimension. To spare your life just so she could make you suffer with the truth and kill you; now that's evil.

Finished, I will say that i'm not a fan of taking away choice from the player as a device to advance the plot. It wasn't as bad as Farcry 3 but still bothered, specially since I could see the ending coming a mile away. I can't see the necessity of giving up the baby as fixed point in time, since it was just So a fixed, static ending for a game which makes a narrative device of having infinite possibilities seems dissonant.

aww

Why would anyone need nukes? But in a post Cold war world nukes are a diplomatic platform in which you are taken more seriously than countries without that military capacity. So I guess they want them to flaunt them, wave them around and see if the world stops exploiting them.