Orogun01

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.

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.

.

Or he actually is the alter ego of Michael Moore, having fun pretending to be a communist.

Only a naive idiot would believe in such a thing as paradise. Human beings, by their very nature, are vile, opportunistic, greedy, and violent. If there is such a paradise it would be destroyed by the presence of humans. There are few, very few, that transcends this norm but most are assassinated, ridiculed, and treated worse than dogs by the majority. The idea of an utopia is unattainable, said so by Plato himself. I wouldn't go so far as to say that human nature is as flawed as you think Killian, specially when the vast majority of Humans are followers. So all the things you mentioned are in fact stemmed from nurture (environment) rather than nature. With that said, only a totalitarian, egotistical despot would be capable of pursuing his own dreamworld as an Utopia. Forcing it on everyone, Japan style.

I’m going to agree. I've heard Tolkien described as 'dark fantasy' when I consider him traditional epic fantasy. Tolkien is High fantasy indeed. Lovecraft on the other hand would fall under "dark". The best description that I could think of dark fantasy is a mix of horror and fantasy. The other description is "a story where humanity is threatened by forces beyond their understanding" which describes Dragon Age's plot (The Darkspawn) and also Mass Effect?

Probably related to a dark fantasy setting or a selling point to make elves and chainmail less nerdy.

Things that Ahmadinejad won't believe: The Holocaust Free Press The Internet Western Music and now 9/11

Looks like a mix between Farcry 2 and Gadget man

He's not even memorable enough for you to get his name right! (It's Jacob.) You are absolutely right and by extension so am I My favorite compliments are also bragging

The irony. The one woman on board the Normandy I want to "romance" only wants to be friends. Maybe Samara will pop up in ME3, who knows. I suppose team members have different ratings. Some might rate higher for their skills, some for their personality. Ignoring their skills, I tend to favour the companionship of Samara and Mordin. Not sure if I can deliver a long dissertation on why, it just simply is. Maybe its their backgrounds, they appear more "stable" than most of the rest. Ditto on the Samara romance. Sometimes I do like her shooting down Shepard since it makes her more "real" and not just another pixelated moronic romance that happens because it must happen and only serve to enhance games as ego stroking tool. But really, IMO she is the best written character. Love how she can be both warm and ruthless, full of experience but at the same time her demeanor is minimalist. Plus a thousand years of experience trapped within that body She really was the only fleshed out relationship of all the characters. Also; I love Aria, maybe I have a thing for blue women. Jack is a whiny emo Grunt is downright boring when he is not threating things (loved his loyalty mission though) Miranda is the most superficial and empty character ever, once you get through her Ice queen facade she is empty. Jason is just another typical military grunt. Tali's okay but I feel that her role was downplayed compared to ME, specially since she was written as a romance and is a returning character. Thane mysteriousness gets boring after 3 conversations that end with asking myself WTF did he meant. Mordin is another of my favorites. Garrus has improved over ME, he has grown into his own and no longer seems to be a Shepard clone. And that's just on the companions. PS: Enterix was right, Twinkies do help on rants.

Exactly the reason i'm curious.

So please, do enlighten us with what you would define as a dictator. Should they eat babies to be on your top 10 list? Now that I think about it, it sound like a good idea: Lof top 10 dictators.

And Zaeed is...? This piece of worn down meat

I would like to take this moment to hijack the thread away from fishes... and onto a point that I feel has been barely touched (needs more love ) characters. Before everyone starts ranting about how much they love/hate who and who I would like to; at least, have some discussions about the writing. Personally I feel them vague and shallow, they are pretty much what they look like. The only way I can think of making them bearable is reminding myself: "They are not Zaeed".

They were on the approaching their end of their contract with Activision, right? Is not to much of a stretch to think that they wanted a little more creative freedom to develop games aside from the Modern Warfare series. Considering that Activision's policies are to squeeze every moneymaking cow dry (see Guitar Hero) and that they were already planning another IP when Activision forced them to do MW2. IMO, they decided to dash out there before they were turned into a MW making Rapunzel, forced to only work on those titles or to see them dragged down by a series of spin offs.