Orogun01

How can the thoughts of a madman be understood? What possible benefit was there to Nazi Germany killing jews? Ethnic Cleansing.

Wouldn't had won even if he wanted to. This year's Oscar theme was "first time winners"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68nC8HvWUCU...feature=related Kristen Dunst turns Japanese?! Only in Japan It would have been better if she was naked... LIKE A MOLE RAT! NOOOO! Specially if she has turned Japanese. Turning Japanese= A man's face when he is pleasuring himself Japan= the land of Futanari Turning Japaneses + Kristen Dunst=

To win that freedom.

The Hurt Locker did and IMO it was a better movie. Not to say that Inglorious Basterds wasn't great, but from a technical standpoint the Hurt Locker awards were well deserved. Christoph Waltz was excellent on that movie though, he stole the spotlight from everyone else.

So now that the Oscars are done is time for discussion. Opinions on the winners and loser. Who should had won? Who should had lost? and why was George Clooney so sour?

The only explanation that comes anywhere near making sense to me is that TIM set the whole thing up (probably through Miranda) to test your readiness. (I'd guess that Wilson thought he was selling you out to somebody who happened to be a covert Cerberus op.) Really, why else would there be a freakin' pistol in a drawer 20 feet from your operating table? Because is an obvious tutorial mission and they decided to put you right on the action, not worrying about the plot. For future reference when you find plot holes remember: It's ME

Well, when they jumped ship from EA and Medal of Honor they turned around and took their place as kings of the FPS with that. Stating they HAVE to have that publisher and brand name is meaningless. IW is the brand name not the publisher, they set the standard throughout their many games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68nC8HvWUCU...feature=related Kristen Dunst turns Japanese?! Only in Japan

Those are the dangers of investing, my friend. That's why you don't put a million dollars on the hands of someone unless you believe that there will be a return. But they obviously believed on IW or else the CoD series would be a few games shorter. An ounce of prevention... The CoD series don't need to be cured. it doesn't but if the devs decided to go bat**** crazy they would Funny thing is that is the devs who have their sanity on this situation, IMO. Since the MW success is the perfect momentum that a new IP needs. Just look at Bad Company who is now "rightfully challenging the MW titles" the standard has been set and the next game will be successful simply by wearing the brand name. At the same time they might want to keep the name that made them famous high, and not have Activision rush them to make a game every year or to give the job to another studio who they don't trust.

A thought Relays usually link to more than one system, if the Collectors only used the Omega 4 Relay they would be seen more often. Specially since the Relay is right next to Omega, hence the name.

Those are the dangers of investing, my friend. That's why you don't put a million dollars on the hands of someone unless you believe that there will be a return. But they obviously believed on IW or else the CoD series would be a few games shorter. An ounce of prevention... The CoD series don't need to be cured.

It promotes it within itself. Government pays for the service people's housing. The government pays for their medical care. The government pays for their food. The government provides it all for their military! SCREW THAT! Lets get rid of that socialistic ideology all together! If a pilot wants to fly a F-22 let him buy it himself, and not have it given to him by the government! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Okay, this is your third Wheeee on less than three hours. Did you finally took your antidepressants?

Those are the dangers of investing, my friend. That's why you don't put a million dollars on the hands of someone unless you believe that there will be a return. But they obviously believed on IW or else the CoD series would be a few games shorter.

Money. They needed start up income, and assumed that they wouldn't mind a few strings. Heck they even went along with the "distortion of vision" that was CoD2 and didn't make a fuss. It's feeling like when they realized they might be onto something with a modern day shooter in the vein of the WW2 sucesses that they wanted to basically be the sole controller of the item. So basically they'd do what they wanted and acti would HAVE to publish it... even if it was call of duty:modern warfare, Carebears edition. I'm all for letting a group go with it's design decisions, but they still need to honor the requests of their bosses, and (if they're indie) make changes if the publisher has problems. I mean, Too Human seems like the perfect example of developer does what they want without any form of publisher input or control, and it turned out to be a bland, boring mess of a game. They did delivered a product with each game completed, there was no guarantee that it would be a success with any of them. Now that one of them turns out to be gold and they want to protect themselves from goldiggers, can you blame them? BTW, Activision would had let them go a long time ago if they did the Carebears edition. The investors in any product have a right to check on the development of it as well as to take measures to protect it. They have the right to pull out their invested money if they feel that the product won't meet their standards. But that doesn't qualify them to make games, which is why they hire developers.

Read the thread: I mean what would you think, a "dark" game is?

Of course there is also that Republican guy who thinks people are poor because they are lazy and education is wasted on those people. That if you charge them for it only those who really want it will be getting it.

You make the fatal mistake of assuming that people aren't hypocritical or just plain stupid. Specially Americans.

Is an analogy, is not 100% perfect. The fact is that it was not a marriage it was a business relationship, they had no reason to tell Activision that they where in negotiations to change publisher as soon as their contract expires. They needed that leverage on Activision as a bargaining ground. A cult following is not the same as primetime exposure. The kind of publicity that whole lot of money can buy; they wouldn't have that. Doesn't matter how good is the product, without advertising their sales will be lower than with it. As a matter of fact advertising is the major factor on games sales. The falling out was not because publishers want to make money; if the publisher makes more money the developer makes more money. Or in this case they don't; the case is not just about control. There are unpaid royalties and breach of a contract that allowed IW to work on a new IP and the rights to the MW future titles. This is because Activision is trying to seize control from IW's founders. *shrugs* they're both wrong, but I personally think that IW is trying to be off of any leash, and wouldn't be happy if they were told to really do ANYTHING that they didn't want to. They want the best of both worlds (indie, and owned) and none of the downsides. If they didn't want to have a leash, why did they get an owner? If this was a divorce the cause would be irreconcilable differences and the legal battle is for who gets custody of the kids (Modern Warfare).

Put your money where your mouth is and not just your foot. We need examples!

I think it would be a lot like Cuba before the '59; the middle upper class and the economy would rise at the expense of the great poverty of the lower classes. It's the scenario in which Marx theories on social revolution would be most present; such as it was the case with Cuba.

Is an analogy, is not 100% perfect. The fact is that it was not a marriage it was a business relationship, they had no reason to tell Activision that they where in negotiations to change publisher as soon as their contract expires. They needed that leverage on Activision as a bargaining ground. A cult following is not the same as primetime exposure. The kind of publicity that whole lot of money can buy; they wouldn't have that. Doesn't matter how good is the product, without advertising their sales will be lower than with it. As a matter of fact advertising is the major factor on games sales. The falling out was not because publishers want to make money; if the publisher makes more money the developer makes more money. Or in this case they don't; the case is not just about control. There are unpaid royalties and breach of a contract that allowed IW to work on a new IP and the rights to the MW future titles. This is because Activision is trying to seize control from IW's founders.

First of all, terrible analogy. Car designers are payed for the look of just one model and don't hold any property over their design. A series expands for more than just one game (duh) This is one of those "artistic" areas of game development where creativity clashes with the corporate. They wanted control of their IP, Activision gave it. They have control over the Cod series beyond the modern era. Plus, there were clashes between Activision and IW; namely the rushing of MW2 when they wanted to focus on a new IP. It was a move to find a more comfortable environment with another publisher that doesn't to kill the golden hen to get rich quick. The relationship between publisher and developer must be healthy and if not is time to move on. You wouldn't force a woman to stay in a abusive marriage just because she committed to it? There are cons to being independent, such as lack of resources and publicity. To continue the marriage analogy, this was more like they were in the middle of a separation and free to see other people. But this is the corporate world, manners and good will only get you so far. IW was protecting themselves against a much larger entity, fairness went out the window at that point.

According to the documents they were negotiating their contract while they were "courting" other publishers. Activision is; no doubt, fighting for their most popular product on the market. But i'm on IW side on this one, 1 good MW game is better than a thousand spin offs. It is their right as creators after all.

Its just not one person. It is the the Islamic clerics that support him. It is the Iranian citizens who support him. It is the "elected" officials and military that supports him. I like to see all of them removed from any sort of power, not death but made powerless. Let the Iranians who oppose his side take the reigns of power, to instill a proper democracy and freedoms for all of Iran. That is the side I will be cheering for. So according to you only "western" christians countries are allowed to have free speech and their own oppinions... right? Prove it wrong, give examples and none of those latin american dictatorships and their obvious repression. Give us a middle eastern country with free speech. Prove it true... all i see is that you hate, that people of independent country did elected in free votes a person with strong religious beliefs, which does not coresponds to your beliefs, and you want to remove him from leadirship, even at the costs of millions of people... and that drops you on the same level like religious fanatics which bombed twin towers... And no because FOX said that election was manipulated, it does not make that true... As much as it did not made the truth when FOX was reporting about all the Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which were never found and will never be found... Couldn't think of one? I don't really have to take an effort to prove it true, just look at all the dictators that have plagued the middle east in the past 20 years. What's more a part of their culture is exclusive of free speech since they have no equal rights for women or gays. This has nothing to do with FOX and a republican agenda, since this is not a lie woven by then and the arguments against inhumanities on the middle east have been plenty.