Amentep

Maybe I didn't get far enough in to the demo, but the writing didn't seem bad - it was serviceable. It reminds me in a way of older RPGs where there wasn't a lot of subtlety in dialogue options. Then again very few games ever really wow me with their writing.

I've started the Demo. Not wild about how its set up to move the camera view and see no way to change it. Combat is kinda wonky but maybe that's because I haven't got used to it. Ruleset seems neat, but I'm not sure what I have to do to raise certain stats. Some neat fiddly stuff. Makes me interested enough to give the game itself a try at some point.

I liked FO3 but I agree it doesn't offer much in terms of things actually mattering (I was bugged like you about the irrelevance of several quests to those involved). But something about running around shooting stuff in this weird sandbox was so fun it didn't matter.

I think it's because movies are much easier to write reviews for because of their length. I mean they're 2 hour experiences in general and you can see it in a day, mull it over and pop up a review. Game reviews take MUCH more time because of the amount of content the reviewer has to sift through to get a good idea of what's going to happen, and thus they need to get the game much earlier than a movie reviewer does. Also the games industry in general.... well not the industry, more like it's surrounding media, is driven by the marketing of the games. Why would I want to click the add for the game who's review says it sucks? That's the catch 22 of the entire gaming review industry, if a game gets bad reviews then people won't want to buy it, and then you loose ad revenue because the company who's game you gave a bad review to will pull the marketing. There are a number of film reviewers will start writing their review during the movie.

Can't say that anything about this game encourages me in the slightest.

I'll come from it from a different perspective - why aren't movie reviews a joke? They're just as full of opinion and bias as any other review and the "4 star" rating system is just as meaningless as the ten point. This doesn't mean that it can be a useful guide - if you read enough reviews from the same person to get an idea of their taste you can usually gauge where your own tastes lie in line (or oppose) that of the reviewer. But that doesn't make them any less idiosyncratic or arbitrary. Reviews are by their nature subjective.

Between this and the 'she's already dead so it's gross' I think I've figured out the ending to Fear 2. O RLY

I musta drunk windex.

From that list I've seen - Ella Enchanted (2004) Charlie

I can't say the pilot really grabbed me. Seemed kinda bland and uninteresting for the most part.

I think it depends on the hero in question, to be honest. I don't think it matters too much if Clark marries Lois because there was never another romantic interest in the series so commiting the two doesn't change much.

I'm pretty sure male full frontal leads to a NA-17 rating. Not entirely true - we get a full frontal shot of the main character in 28 Days Later... and that was rated "R". There was no sexual conotation to the scene - he woke up naked in a hospital - which is probably why it didn't freak out the MPAA.

I'm getting a bit off the point, but Joe Quesada changed the marriage of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson because he had never liked it. His basic position was that Peter Parker is supposed to be the guy who things never quite work out right with (having his friends become his enemies, having a boss who hates his alter-ego, being poor and having to scrape by). He felt that having Peter Parker marry Mary Jane - a high paid supermodel - that Marvel had essentitally taken away the things that made Peter Parker who he was. I don't think it had anything to do with relating to the relationship per se, but the concluding success of the relationship that bugged him. I still think it was a stupid thing to do (and a stupider way to do it).

I think that this is indeed part of it, but I think its actually a bit broader then this. For example most slasher-horror movies have nudity and sex but are rarely about human relationships. I think the reality is that (a) most video games are centered on plot rather than character and (b) most video games use the "exciting bits" of the story for their gameplay, leaving little time for most character business. Games just don't have the pacing like a book or film to divert itself from the main plot to deal with romance or sex. And given various game plots (would it really make sense for characters in Resident Evil for example - under attack from Zombies - to start talking about relationships or making out in any of the various unsecure locations around town? Mario doesn't rescue Princess Peach until the end of the game, so little chance of their relationship really being defined on screen, and hanky-panky getting on screen would be gratuitus.) the inclusion of sex and romance would be head scratching. Thats why other than romance or life sim games with the occasional RPG, romance doesn't crop up in games.

Isn't communication with the outside world prohibited? Wouldn't the DS's WiFi tip them off? You can always get a book, though... AFAIK communication with the outside world is only prohibited *if* the individual is seated on a jury and *if* the jury is sequestered. Obviously you can't be playing a DS game if you're in a jury listening to evidence, but I'd imagine when you're in the waiting area waiting to see if you're called for a jury interview you'd be able to play. Last time I was waiting for jury duty though I don't think the DS existed...

The guy who lost his arm never came back. There were from the B

I keep reading this as "Elvis with a shotgun" for some reason. Which gives me this bizarre idea of playing dead pop-culture stars who die and wake up in a bizarre purgatory where they have to arm themselves and fight for a place in heaven. It could never happen due to licensing of stars images, but man does it kinda freaks me out.

Yeah I had that problem as well. Its like "Here make your face...IN THE DARK!!!!1" I ended up making a bunch of characters who looked like Vampires they were so pale. Not because I wanted to play post-apocalyptic undead but because the shadowy window made their skin look darker than it actually was in-game. Last time I picked up Oblivion was the first time I actually figured out how to make a face with it and not have the person look like their face had exploded.

Perhaps it should read "boobs in scenes where the person owning the boobs is not actually engaging in sexual intercourse at the time in which the boobs flash upon the silver screen 70 foot high and in all their glory"?

The CCA still exists; its mostly only used by Archie and DC Comics (for their young readers line) but still reviews and approves comics. AIUI the CCA was originally ran BY the Comics Companies (and was partially instituted by the original participants to kill EC Comics and Lev Gleason). IIRC one of the Archie Publishers was the original CMAA's Code Administrator. By the late seventies (at least) boobs and naked butts could be seen in PG movies (provided that there was no sexual connotations). The PG-13 rating really skewed violence and nudity around.

Of course that means that Chris O'Donnell had nipples on his Robin suite - twice Alicia Silverstone went nippleless, however, in the Batgirl suit to even things out.

I see it differently. Bale's playboy Wayne seems to be an act, at least ever since he's returned from his training with Ra's. Keaton seems to always be an introverted loner, both as Batman and Wayne. But it's been a while since I've seen the '89 Batman. We meet Bale in the first film as Wayne (as opposed to the Keaton film, where we're introduced to Batman first). To me at least, the movies suggest that Batman is a guise he adopts (and I think his dialogue with Alfred about the need for Batman as a symbol indicate that Bruce sees it as such) rather than an over-riding part of who he is. Yes he plays up certain things (like Wayne being the rich party with a woman on either arm) for effect, but it doesn't change my feelings that overall Bale seems to be Wayne to me. Keaton as the loner seems more like Batman in that sense; fighting crime is who he is. When he's being social, when he's being Wayne - that's the act he's putting on because who he is won't allow him to disappear from society entirely.

AFAIK nipples were on both Kilmer and Clooney's suits.

I think Bale does well as Wayne, his Batman is okay, but he sounds like he needs a throat lozenge. Keaton is like the reverse, his Batman is great but his Wayne is only okay. But in his defense his movies give very little for Wayne to do but wait for the call for Batman. I think in someway both are strung by the dichotomy of the character - is he Batman or Wayne? Bale plays Batman as Wayne, whereas the way the earlier movies worked Keaton seemed to be Batman playing at being Wayne. Or maybe its just me. That's be Adam West. Hard to really make a comparison since he's acting in a comedy, while Wilson, Lowery, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney and Bale are all playing the part in more dramatic productions.