Datasets:

amitrajitbh1

/

gaming

like 0

Now all we need is Irrelevant

I'm very fortunate in that A) I'm a male, and B) I've never felt this idolization of my favorite characters and people. I've never felt like Spidey is thin and toned, and so I should be. Or Nightcrawler is suave, and that's what I should be. I've always been content (enough) with whoever I was, and just admiring these characters without trying to be them. Judging by the amount of people who comment on "Barbie complexes" and things of the like, I presume it has something to do with being a female. Maybe males just aren't as impressionable, generally. Anyway, I'd like to point out that there are more eating disorders than anorexia and bulimia. I'm a male geek with an eating disorder. Compulsive eating. Eating is my friend, my lover, and my confidant. When it feels like the world is against me, my comfort food is always there to ease the pain. When I'm happy I want to eat. When I'm sad I want to eat. When I'm excited about something, I want to eat. When I'm nervous, eat. When I feel anything, I want to eat because of it. It's a pretty shitty issue to have. I don't indulge in it without moderation. I try to keep it under control but it's a constant struggle every day.

He isn't saying every game should be like Morrowind, he is saying every game should be awesome like Morrowind. Morrowind raised his expectations for what a quality game is like. Morrowind placed content first and graphics second and optimization last, Oblivion placed graphics first and content second and optimization last. Morrowind was full of diverse environments each with their own dangers. Oblivion was full of hills, and ruins that were all copies of one another with rooms reversed. I think what turned me off the most about Oblivion however was the map and fast travel system. Morrowind placed the player INTO the environment. Often your only choice was to walk on foot. Night time felt dangerous! No popping open a map and clicking on the next city and being safe. Morrowind didn't notify you of all nearby points of interest like some twisted six sense, you had to explore around. One of the best sounds in Morrowind was the soft cries of a Slit Strider promising shelter was not far away. Oblivion ruined theft. Not only were stolen items impossible to sell without a fence, inventories were leveled. Meaning you could break into the richest jewelery store, and sneak around, and pick every lock, and leave again no richer than if you had found a common chest in some ruin. Oblivion was a beautiful game which introduced several new fun elements. The Dark Brotherhood quest chain was especially wonderful. However that said, I never once felt that spark of magic that I felt and still feel in Morrowind. The desire to just pack some things and set off in an unknown direction not sure of what I will find, even if it is my own death. In the end to each their own, I don't play either game these days. -

TO EVERYONE SAYING camera=/=eye: Yes that is true, the eye perceives the light slightly differently. Regardless, the difference is mostly in the pain of the brightness, not the Size of the aura of light given off. The only sure way to tell is if you have the light your self. In a pitch black room it is impossible to see past the light and even in a low lit room its difficult to see past the chest. But in the full brightness of the day your pupils are so small and the light shining on the subject behind the TAC light is so bright that you can easily see past it. The biggest problem DICE has is that there is no difference between night and day, AND the size of the aura is too big at close range. This picture is almost exactly what it looks like in real life, minus the pain of brightess, and unless you have a tac light to test it out then you will have to take my word for it.

There's this neat feature that lets you deposit books into the inventory of the bookshelf like a chest, and then it auto-places them on the shelves in an organized and manageable fashion. In Oblivion, if you wanted to decorate your bookshelf you had to pick them up manually and try your best to place them on the shelf in a coherent manner, which was next to impossible.

again, if you can put up with non voiced actors, i am fairly certain this could be done imagine if you had to do the side quest for novac about the gruuls, it now needs to have a few different voice sets (not just one voice changed, but a whole bunch) proceed as normal we have now / independent vegas when legion overruns the area, the gruuls are trying to get out of there as soon as possible, you would need to recover the materials differently as the old lady would be enslaved / killed by the legion. NCR comes thru and tries to absorb novac, thus the gruuls could be taken care of by the NCR as a way to convince novac needs NCR help. then consider quests like vault 22, where if camp maclearen was overran by legion, you would not get the quest to go in, players could miss that quest entirely. there are other ones like the freeside/westside stuff (kings, NCR, or even the throne stuff), then nelise airebase stuff where they need to be locked down againest legion raids. a whole bunch of things needs to be changed for it to remain on par with what we have before if you gave them $1 billion to hire just average VA for the game en masse, then maybe it would happen, but as it stands it is impossible given how much voice talent is needed for this to work.

I think what Sex_E_Searcher is trying to say is that if people didn't pay for Xbox live Gold (which contains ads), then they would definitely notice the loss in revenue and act accordingly (perhaps similar to how mmo's become free-to-play because no one is willing to pay for it anymore). The Xbox Live service would be free by now if no one had wanted to pay 60 dollars a year for a service which is free everywhere else. The ads themselves would then be justifiable because you're not paying for the service (like ads on youtube). Microsoft wouldn't want to LOSE money from offering this service (which is free for pretty much everyone else), so they bring in ads for revenue. The reason why ads are being brought in now is because people don't seem to notice or just simply don't care, that they are essentially not being offered a "service" anymore, but are now merely the product themselves. People are content with paying for a service which doesn't necessarily need their money and Microsoft gets to double-dip in a way considering you bring in ad revenue from the ads in the dashboard.

Technically, microsoft can't have attempted to make gamers pay for live on their PC's, Since it really is quite impossible. They can't make ps3 users pay for live, because, to put it simply, microsoft don't own Playstation. Xbox live is 100% owned by xbox and are allowed to do whatever they wish. And they chose to make gamers pay for their games, as they're unlocking the internet on an xbox in doing such. it's just like another broadband bill. You can't do this for PC, as it's already being paid for with the broadband.

Because you keep paying it! It's the same reason EA and the other fuckwit Battle Modern WarEarth 201236: Call of Cthulu keep coming out - you keep buying the bullshit, whine about it for a year (while continuing to play it all year long) and next Christmas? "OMG, can't fucking wait for WarDuty Modern Battlefiend 201298346374 - going to go preorder!" Microsoft is a publicly traded company - they are obligated to maximize profits for their investors. Xbox Live started as a way to subsidize Xbox sales, in addition to the software/hardware subsidies - it's why they could sell a $600-700 box for $300-400. So, you sit here and grumble - but let me ask: will you be renewing your Xbox Live service? If so, shut up - you obviously believe the service they are providing is worth the expense and are currently doing nothing but "OMG'ing" with everyone else after a seemingly-drastic change. You'll still continue using the service, you'll still continue paying for it and you'll continue to enjoy it. Not until you cancel said service are you allowed to bitch and moan - at that point it becomes a service in which you believe is not worth the expense.

The cable company doesn't put the ads there. The channels do. Your cable company can't possibly run every single channel they show, so the people behind those channels put up the ads because that is the only way they make money. The cable company makes its money through the monthly bill, because they need money to be able to use their equipment to bring the channels to you.

Boycotting worked when economies were localized and individuals actually affected profits. If MS was that close to financial ruin that if (say, however many commented on this thread) all decided to not buy an Xbox and experience a "revenue drop," like you say they would have gone out of business long before now.

I do not mind the 60 dollars or the ads. I like having cross-game chat, quick updates and block-alls on names across the board.

Agreed ^^ some good points but I think just getting a PC at the same specs as an Xbox loses the magic of playing games on a PC. Running games that look better than what they do on a console is much more satisfying I think! It also doesn't have the same community element as Xbox live does (not saying it's always a GREAT community, we've all seen Youtube) and that's what I'm willing to pay a bit of money for. I have more of a problem with game-makers creating "extra content" before the game has come out and wanting me to pay for that than an online service -_- when I buy a full price game I'd like all the content please! Part of my joy for the Xbox live though is that moving away from home in my late teens, it meant I could play games with my Dad, my Boyfriend and my Brother. Granted, we could have done this on PC but we all have jobs where we're on the computer often, so going and sitting in the front room and having friends/housemates sit with you had a different appeal to it. I also enjoy playing things like Gears of War and Magic: The Gathering co-op online sat with my Boyfriend or Brother etc when I go visit - an experience I cannot get on PC.

In most cases, the "server" is hosted on one of the players' xboxes, i.e. the "host", but the XBL servers also perform some synchronisation functions between the various clients and the host. What happens in most games (I'll take Reach as an example) goes like this: 1 Some players all hit "matchmake" at roughly the same time, so they're all looking for games among each other. 2 The XBL server(s) compare rank/trueskill information of each gamertag, and chops up the total population of players into n groups of similarly-ranked players. 3 Each Xbox pings each of the others, to establish the latency between each member of the group right now and reports this back to the XBL server. 4 The XBL server combines this right now data with past connection history (do you lag out lots? Drop connections? etc) to pick who is best to host. 5 The chosen Xbox sets up a server, and each other Xbox connects to it. The game starts, some reporting back to the XBL servers happens all the time (unlocks, achievements, ranks, etc), but the actual game is being played on the hardware in people's houses. Now assume the host drops out: here's where some magic (and why XBL is cleverer than the PC listen server model, at least in terms of robustness) kicks in. 6 The host disconnects. All the other Xboxes lag for a little while, because this could just be temporary, but after a second or two, they go to the "renegotiating host" screen. 7 The whole group all independently query XBL to ask who should host. The XBL servers pick a new host, which starts a new server, BUT 7a The new host loads the map as they last saw it , or possibly in a compromise state with everyone else. The lag prediction code in the game quickly resynchronises the game so that everyone is seeing the same thing. 8 The game ends. The host communicates the outcome to XBL, which updates things like TrueSkill rankings (for matchmaking) and stats (for bungie.net). Mid-game, the clients have been communicating any achievements unlocked.

Looks like the oversaturated mess that Oblivion was. I love colors and everything, but there is a certain point where you have too much.

I'm saying you might find a game individually for a bit cheaper, but to get all Valve games for $50 is a Steal and you shouldn't and wont regret it. They are some of the most polished, fun, and entertaining games out. Hell I would be happy with ONE Valve game, let alone all of them.

I'm trying to get the Portal double pack, I can't really afford it, and all logic, and steams servers doesn't really let me get anything other than 503's, but I will prevail and spent money I nearly don't have.

To get around Steam Guard, a hacker would need access to your e-mail AND your password. Not just one or the other, both. If you use Gmail, you can enable 2-Step verification which is a lot like Steam Guard, except the secondary unlock is your phone or mobile device. So to get into your Steam account the hacker would need your Steam password and e-mail password -- both of which should be different for optimal security -- and phone/mobile device.

Here's my insight. I had a friend who plays WOW and RIFT, and he prefers RIFT. He says the changes are mainly graphics and more subtle under the hood tweaks, but essentially, this is what WOW would be if it was released today. Singularity was a fairly, fun, yet generic shooter. It's a game in the vein of Bioshock, andsome of the characterization and back story is pretty neat. It's an okay PC port, nothing really special, for example, FOV is locked, no toggle-able iron sights, reload and use is bound to the same key..... It looks fairly outdated, but for 7.50, give it a shot if you liked Bioshock. I've yet to try the multiplayer. Portal 1 and 2 are puzzle games by Valve. Many people love it, and many hold it dear to their hearts, but I could never really get into them. Still, they're cheap, and they're good PC games. Max Payne 1/2. This is the classic noir game. This game helped revolutionize bullet-time and other features. The whole game oozes style, and the atmosphere is very nice. I've yet to play too much of it, but I dug it. It's also a proper PC game, with mod support, graphics options, rebindable keys, etc. For 3.75, you should be willin g to give it a shot. Metro 2033 is a brutal yet phenomenal game. It's got one of the most richly detailed worlds I've ever immersed myself in. The combat is the weakest part, but it's fairly tolerable. I recommend playing on Ranger Easy/Hardcore, as they help improve the lackluster guns. It's a very good PC port, and it has PC specific features like DirectX11 and PhysX. I'll recommend this game to anyone, as I really enjoyed it. It's very much traditional survival horror, in that each fight is brutal and dreadful. You always feel susceptible to your environment. Fable III was not a very good game. There were no reedeming qualities for me. It was bland, generic, and tepid. It thought it was funny, but it was boring. It was a lousy PC port, and it's definitely not worth 12.50. Just Cause 2 is an amazing game. It's essentially Michael Bay: The game. There's so many explosions flying across the screen at once. It's a personal mayhem sandbox, for you to dick around it. This game truly rewards your imagination and cruelness potential. It's also an excellent PC port, and the modding community is pretty active. Easily the best game of the sale today. Orcs Must Die is an excellent tower defense/ action game, and for 3.75, it's a steal. It's a very fun game, and that's all it focuses on, pure fun. It does what it does well, and it's a great way to kill time. I enjoyed it very much, and there's a demo for all of those who are uncertain of its charms It's a fairly solid PC port and it runs rather well on most systems. I believe they added a .cfg file to allow custom keybinding. Amnesia: The Dark Descent is a terrifying game. It's drenched in atmosphere and it makes you dread playing it. What it does so well that most other AAA "horror" games fail at is at the scares. Unlike in Dead Space, it's not the predictable "jump out at your face" scare endlessly repeated. Instead, the greatest threat is your imagination, as Amnesia loves to mess with your mind. The greatest enemy is yourself, combine that with the fact that yyour only means of defense are running and hiding, and you've got a terrifying experience. It's also a good PC game, and it's got quite a few good mods out there. I heard Bunch of Heroes was a rather mediocre twin stick shooter. The community is all but dead according to the forums, and I heard it lacked a decent multiplayer community. I also heard that single player was excessively hard, so based on what I've heard, you should pass this one up. Some much better twin stick shooters are Renegade Ops and Nation Red. I don't know much about the Pendulo Adventure pack, but I heard The Next Big Thing was alright. I'd say it's passable, and I'd go with the Telltale pack. According to MaidenMadness: "I didn't really get into The Next Big Thing, the mechanics are classic what you'd expect from a classic point 'n' click adventure but the humor is a bit too forced IMHO. Runaway: A Road Adventure and Runaway 2: A Dream of the Turtle on the other hand were outstanding. Didn't play the third one, Twist of Fate, yet. They're all classic point 'n' click adventures and if you like that sort of stuff, and haven't played Runaways it's a good buy for $12 for Runaways alone. If you have never played point 'n' click adventure games before Runaways or Monkey Islands I & II Special Edition are a good place to start." I heard Sam & Max was fairly solid. I remember one of the episodes ( I think Abe Lincoln Must Die!) was free on Steam, so be sure to give that a shot. Overall, they're Telltale games, and you have to like that specific kind of genre. They're very good about demos, so be sure to give them a shot. According to MaidenMadness: "Played a few of the episodes from season one, they're all right but even though I was a huge fan of Hit the Road, these episodes didn't really blew me away. They're OK and good to kill of some time but nothing which one couldn't pass over. If I had to chose point 'n' click adventure I'd personally go with Runaways."

It's true, Steam has complete control over your games and it's something a lot of people don't know about. I've bought into steam largely because the day to day service they provide is enough for me to ignore the risk of a black swan type event. As for Paradox, they're one publisher and it's good that they're succeeding on the path they've chosen. However the projections by EA (not the most objective of sources I'll admit), that are also mentioned in the article describe a 0% growth in the "PC" market, as opposed to a noticeable growth in online games. The pure PC market is the one that could benefit from good DRM, the online market already has inherent rights management due to its online nature. Many developers seem to agree with EA's assessment; Crytek, ID software, Epic Games, Gas Powered Games (made Supreme Commander) and Infinity Ward have all cited piracy as a reason for shifts away from PC exclusivity. No doubt the size of the console market and their nature as closed systems was a big carrot for those developers but you can't use that to discount the effect of the stick that is piracy. I'd also like to get back to your claims about DRM's inefficacy. This [aritcle]( contains an in-depth look at the history of piracy. It's a long read, the

And if you actually read my comment, I already said that I have no experience with Origin and was explicitly not commenting on Origin vs steam, but rather as to why I don't mind using Steam's DRM.

Weird, no one's answered this. Bronies are usually quick to answer these sort of things. I guess I'll take it from here. Yes, I genuinely like the show because it's a good show. I'm not in it for the popularity/irony/memes (although the crazy amount of memes from that show are an added benefit). I've been watching since about 4 episodes in, so back then there really wasn't a huge community yet, especially since I'm not a 4channer. I admit, I had my doubts. A female friend of mine told my I should give it a shot. I laughed off the idea for a long time and couldn't believe that she was watching a shitty cartoon that not even little girls would be interested in. I eventually caved and told her I'd agree to just one episode. Well, the first episode was girly-show-cliche-ridden, but it had a decent plot going and it had interesting characters, which was way more than I expected. That episode, however, ended on a cliffhangar, so I was kindof forced to watch the second one. I'm the kind of dude who doesn't like to leave a plot hanging. That second episode had more character development than most children's cartoons have over the entire run of their shows, and it ended in a Star Wars tribute. I admitted defeat. So, sure, it was a show about pastel colored ponies with pretty manes and silly names, but it didn't suck. It can be girly and childish at times, especially when it comes to some of the ponified vocabulary (not gonna lie, that still makes me cringe) and the character names, but I could say the same thing about 90% of LSP's lines in Adventure Time, and I still love that show, too. The thing about MLP is that it is first and foremost Hasbro's way of selling kids toys. I guess I'm pretty impressed that the creators of the show were able to create something watchable at all (unlike previous generations of the show) instead of some kind of animated infomercial used to brainwash children. It's the kind of show I'd want my kids to watch, if I had them. If you tried to watch My Little Pony and found it to just not be your thing, that's fine. No one can expect everyone to like the same thing. But just by actually watching even a few times before deciding you don't like it and by not trying to insult the actual fans with the standard "you are so gey for wacthing a show for girls," you've gained my respect. Ponies just aren't your thing. I hope you understand why they are mine!

Ironically, the thing that drew me in to the show originally was probably the same 'girly' 'childish' nature that pushes other people away. The entire show, top to bottom, is just so goddamn adorable. It's like a koala bear crapping a rainbow in my brain every time I queue up an episode. It's not just bland saccarine BS though. The characters have a surprising amount of depth and are all relatable in their own ways. The writing is clever and very seldom formulaic. The sound design and voice acting are top notch (seriously, Tabitha St. Germain is gold. GOLD). The animation is clean and sharp and filled with nice little touches. I also have just as much fun looking for Derpy Hooves in episodes as I do looking for the Snail in Adventure Time.

If this was Origin they'd be suing the hackers for using EA copyrighted methods of fucking its customers. We'd learn about that via some tech site (probably reddit) because all origin would have is some popular game 50% to draw our attention.

The difference is lon term vs short term. Publicly held corporations have to care about their stock price. A dip in the price will send investors fleeing. A privately held company's investors have a harder time selling their shares, and are thus less likely to do so. More to the point: dips in stock price gets executives fired, so they are incentivized to value short term gains over the long term. I don't exactly know how Valve is structured, but I don't think Gabe worries very much about losing his job.

I see lots of bitching about how differently this is being treated from say Sony's hacking incident. I'll try to give some insights as to why. From what I have gathered over the years it would seem people generally have some negative feelings about the playstation network. I see it constantly being griped about how the experience sucks, it doesn't work, live is better, steam is better, etc. etc. That is strike 1 for PSN. Now they get hacked, that is fuel to the fire of the already brewing dislike of their service. Steam on the other hand has had an overwhelming amount of positive feedback. People are always praising it for how it is a great service, games are cheap, etc. etc. Valve at this point is in pretty good standing with most people. Then they get hacked, maybe a few days pass and they let everyone know in a detailed post to everyone. People are advised to take precautions, etc. etc. the overall tone of the message isn't much different from the one Sony sent. To recap

no i find it ironic to this picture that the first gta game to allow you to swim also didn't let you use anything to full effect until you learned how....lol?

It's not all kids, I first played Halo 2 when I was 10 and Halo 3 when I was 12, I normally got on better than most adults than kids on that game and actually manged to get a pretty respectable rank and 5000+ games on it. Also, have you tried online gaming lately? Honestly, 20+ seems worse than most of the kids.

personally... I don't mind too much cause I have tons of points that I can use to buy games for almost nothing.. and ok yeh I had to buy full price releases to get those points but I've got about £40 saved up to get the N7 edition of ME3 real cheap. so it's like... I've saved up the last year almost for nothing? I even traded in Saints Row3 last week so I'd have more money off ME3... I regret this so much now... I should get a free copy of SR3 back! (nah I'm joking about that part) but still... I'm a PC gamer first so the whole idea of console games being already £10 or £15 more is still annoying to me. but seeing as I'm paying £70 (or would have paid £30) for the N& edition I'm fine with spending that money on something I really want.

Cute infographic, but there is a lot of weird bias going on with how the data is presented. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's a very strange way of arguing for PC gaming. Here are some things to consider when viewing the infographic (in order from top to bottom): The "Game Revenues" chart includes casual game websites and games on social networking sites. Of all game platforms, games on social networking sites have experienced the largest growth over the past three years and greatly skews the result. In my opinion, social networks are platforms in themselves and should be positioned apart from pc gaming in the graph. When discussing GPU processing power, don't let the number of Hz fool you. It depends a lot on the architecture of the GPU - If it can run two simultaneous processes at 500 MHz, would the result equal one process at 1 GHz, or would the net gain be greater? It all depends on the operations being performed. When comparing GPUs, which PC GPU is being referred to? My Macbook pro has a discrete AMD Radeon GPU working at 675 GHz, and the majority of both laptop and stationary PCs are entirely without a separate GPU and use integrated graphics processing that use the CPU for performance. (For instance; The "average" Dell Inspiron 620 Desktop with Intel HD graphics processes graphics at between 500-677 MHz) "Time spent on each system" is a very strange measurement. The time spent on a PS3, XBOX360, or a Wii, is all dedicated to entertainment (including someone watching movies, etc), but on the PC that time is not dedicated time at all. Most of the time spent on game consoles is spent on actual gaming, while time spent on the PC includes anything from paying your bills and browsing Facebook to filing TPS report spreadsheets in a cubicle. The "Consoles and Lack of Reliability" section doesn't use PC statistics for comparison. My guess is that the failure rate of a PC system after two years is far greater than the console ones. - Especially when taking software problems into account (including reboots due to windows acting weird). When regarding "The Future of PC Gaming", comparing sales during a single month (a month with a huge PC release and a very poorly marketed console release) is misleading at best. "The best-selling console game" of all time is actually "Wii Sports" with a total of 38.93 million units sold in North America alone. That makes the best selling PC-game of all time seem a bit small in comparison (The Sims, 11.22 million units in North America). So, be a tad skeptical, that's all I'm saying.

You realize their proposed console in terms of this article. Is nothing more than a hardware locked PC. Essentially they would release a cheap premade PC every 3-4 years at console level pricing. That would run any PC game. There would be no console version to speak of. It would simply be a Steam game that works on any device that supports steam like the ValveBox. In theory something like this with no license fees to release games on and the like should increase the quality of PC releases(combined with the fact that even the other consoles are going to have to get closer to PC's out of necessity). There is also the bonus that developers would probably like in that it would be killing used games sales a bit.(though who knows what piracy could end up like) As well as the fact if the steam console essentially allows you to use your Steam account. There is no real issue of losing your library if you want to step up to a full fledged PC. And backwards compatibility should nearly become a mute point

Labor-- the fine art of turning all those nice shiny cogs into one sweet purring beast. [...] we're looking at around a $600 cost to have that all put together for them. What are you talking about? I knew that "fine art" when I was 12, and there is no way that somebody will charge you $307.09 to assemble your PC it costs more in the range of $10.

Honestly I have zero details on how that would be done, because I wouldn't be the one they're designing it for. :/ The most common end user has proven they're not willing or sometimes not even capable of learning about the hardware they're using, so replacing the processor on a motherboard is pretty much out of the question. My suggestion about extremely user-friendly upgrades is a pipedream, I know, but I still adhere to my opinion that something like Sony's 10-Year-Plan is ridiculous and shouldn't go anywhere past a product cycle of about five years. The gap between PS2 and PS3 retail releases, for instance, was six years (PS2: Mar 2000; PS3: Nov 2006), and I have no idea why people would be complaining about another generation of consoles coming out right now. Developers have had more than enough time to master the current platform, and now it's just becoming a hinderance in needing to be accomodated by reducing developmental potential rather than utilizing its newfound power it had at release. I'd hate for anyone to interpret this as "PC MASTER RACE SPEND MUNNAY ERRYDAY", because that's not what I mean. This is about keeping a form of standards and making consistent improvement in the gaming industry. Also, last time I checked I couldn't build a decent gaming rig from the ground for $500...

Because anger. Maybe I just have anger issues but I've thrown phones, controllers, all that shit. It just happens and my first instinct is to throw something. Now that I've gotten an iPhone I've gotten out of the habit of throwing my phone. Controllers are still sometimes thrown. But if I'm at my computer, I just end up hitting my head against the desk.

I spent ages as a little kid buying single cards from this vending machine thing that had them, I'd save up my allowance every week in hopes of getting this one because I'd seen it on the show and loved it. Even though I knew no other elementary-aged girls that liked anything Yu-Gi-Oh, and had no plans to try and play the game, I just thought they were so pretty I kept buying them. And by the gods, one day I fucking got one. I treasured that card so much that I either kept it in my pocket or on my desk in a very particular spot so I'd never lose it. At the time I was roommates with a family that had a little boy a year older than me, and one day my card went missing. I confronted him directly about it, and he decided that instead of saying he didn't steal it, he'd tell me straight up that he'd taken it, and he'd ripped it up. Doing what any pissed-off kid would do, I crept into his room in the dead of night, stole all his Pokemon cards (about 30 or so) and dumped them all in the pool. I might have also made all his G.I. Joes copulate with my barbie dolls after one day he told me he hated all my barbies and they weren't allowed to be in his G.I. Joe trucks. I now realize this whole thing turned out pretty well for his action figures. Still hate that kid.

What I understand, nobody ever said anything about them playing pokèmon, but only looked at them, which in fact is a quite common thing to do when you seem something that's not really that familiar to you. He then proceeds with these thought lines, which transcends into his body language as somebody mentioned and makes him anger full over something that actually never happened. All this anger comes from him thinking people are looking down on him and his friends, when most of them probably don't. In other words does he actually look down upon his own hobby for being weird and projects what he believed onto other people. He then goes into defensive mode and blame other for something he really should blame himself for.

it isnt. You can get a ton of sercond hand 580's on the cheap right now (much better than stock versions) from enthusiasts right now. Amazon also just had a massive sale on all 580's.

Well, thanks - I could do without the ranting and swearing. My point still stands and just because you somehow aren't versatile enough to follow a particular narrative doesn't mean it's not worthy in general. Sorry that probably came across as a trifle offensive, but I don't know how else to write it. My point, as I feel I need to remind you, is that your post is unfortunately timed enough and also lately part of a cascade momentum to put real pressure on games companies (specifically BioWare and any other developer who might be paying attention to their PR problem) to pander to the most vocal players which is almost always going to be the loudly unhappy ones. I'm just afraid that we'll end up with games which cater to those whom the creators perceive to be the majority simply because they are the most vocal petition-addicts. Then you run the risk of ending up like the movie industry where you get brainlessly expensive yet narrative bankrupt summer blockbusters (see CoD as above). I'm not saying that developers shouldn't get feedback per se but they've got the message now as no doubt other developers have if they've been paying attention. There's been a difference lately between constructive feedback and what is essentially (and topically enough) a witch hunt. There's such a thing as pushing too hard. That's all I'm saying - evocative story-telling is rare enough in AAA gaming right now that I think we're in a real danger of AAA publishers pulling in back in fright and going with safer options if the backlash freaks them and the marketing folks. I'm tired of the masses of generic FPS franchises and I'd just like something different and aside from BioWare, there aren't that many else putting out content that isn't FIFA Bazillion or Space-Marine-Desert-Storm-Multiplayer-FPS-5000. Let's not freak the shareholders out too much, eh? The point has been made, after all. I enjoyed Dragon Age. And Mass Effect. All the games. Still better than all the FIFA and mainly-multiplayer CoD-style games. This cacophony of petition-calls and complaints is starting to sound as though after a couple of stumbles recently , BioWare is somehow "dead to us". They still make decent stuff. Take a breath, aye?

I always used to crave this back when it wasn't a thing, then when it started happening it was just so... noticeable... There is a limit to how much you can represent in first person games without making the player aware that they are piloting a character rather than interacting directly with a virtual environment (though that's not always a bad thing). But the fact is I'm never going to look at a virtual leg and think " That's my leg " but when I'm driving a vehicle in Half life 2 or opening a door in Amnesia it feels like it's really ME doing it - because I am. I press a button > the gate switch is flicked. vs I press a button > a hand reaches out and pulls the switch. In either situation you forget you are pressing the buttons on your keyboard or controller but in the latter you are made aware that you are acting through a character who is not you. Tribes is all about the multiplayer and I'm not really looking for immersion so I don't mind cute tricks like this, furthermore I have had a theory that all the characters in Tribes are robots being piloted remotely (no gore when they blow up) so this idea works worked quite well. (The new Infiltrator skins kinda killed this idea...C'est la vie). But I've really come to appreciate the Half life 2 way of doing things, at first I thought it was just due to graphical limmitations but it's so much more than that. No hands when I climb a ladder, pull a switch or turn a steering wheel. If I were to see virtual hands it would just remind me that they are not mine. I think as games advance they need to be mindful of pitfalls like this (well... in my opinion...). Just because we have the technology to do more and more doesn't always mean we should. There is a uncanny valley effect going on here, Extra Credits did an **[episode]( on motion controls and I believe their ideas extend even further, to things like this.

r/gaming and the entirety of the mainstream gaming press hated it, for reasons that I can't relate to. I liked it a lot--I thought it was a good mixture of an old-school shooter and a next-gen stealth-action title. I wasn't annoyed by how "hard" it was (it got frustrating at times, but it was rewarding enough that I was able to surmount the frustrations I felt,) I thought the graphics were cool (the dinosaurs in particular,) and that the weapons were, while less imaginative than those in Turok 2 , a perfect fit for the atmosphere of the new game, and a lot of fun to use. The secondary fire modes weren't gimmicks, but actual functional features that improved gameplay and made the game more tactically flexible. I also liked the multiplayer modes--they felt really old-school, and fun in a really simple, straightforward way. I'm not saying it was perfect--the aiming was, as many have said, pretty bad, the controls were occasionally unusable, and the story was derivative--but for me the positives far outweighed the negatives (the chief positive, of course, being that I had fun .)

The issue with kids playing Mature games, or experiencing other adult culture, is that they don't have developed enough sensibilities to get offended by something and object to it. In Grand Theft Auto, a sensible adult can say, "Hey, making all the black NPCs jivetalk is a bit racist," or, "Wow, I disagree with the portrayal of the police as stupid, conniving, dirty, or otherwise the enemy. I don't find that true in life." And then we get kids with backwards morals who try to call all black people "homie" and say "fuck the police!" all the time when their parents don't share those morals. This is true, because you see kids out there with screwed up views on race and the police all the time regardless of how their parents are trying to rear them. And it's nothing against Grand Theft Auto, I played it when I was 16, and liked it. But it can fuck kids up, not as the news likes to portray it, but much more broadly and subtly.

I was 9 when I first played GTA 3. Of course just like every other kid that plays M rated games I could distinguish the difference between real life and a video game so the actions taken in a video game did not transfer over to real life. It's obvious even for a 9 year old that the main character and the people he associates himself with are criminals and they are the bad guys. The more I played it I actually began to understand that it is a satire poking fun at American society. I grew up being able to look at the world differently thanks to some of the themes in GTA. For example, It taught me not to be be a materialistic money driven person. It's a great game to reflect on life as you play and it has taught me many lessons.

It's a high quality drawing. It resembles styles frequently seen in Japanese anime, but it was far from Japanese. Also, you're upset BECAUSE you think it's anime? What's wrong with anime? It's just a medium of delivery. You can bitch about things you hate that are frequently in anime, but you can also bitch about the same old shit on live action TV. It's an industry, they're going to try to make things formulaic. There is going to be anime that was made specifically to make money, not because they had a good idea and wanted to share it. Tsunderes, Moeblob, harem anime, excessive fanservice are all things that are oftentimes abused by the anime industry, because it became popular and they saw potential profits. Also didn't the entire internet decide that using "le" was fucking stupid a year back or so? Because it is.

The honest answer is how I set it up might not be how you want to set it up. It all depends on what video card and processor you have; and keep in mind emulation takes serious resources. No doubt your PC is much more powerful than a PS2 in a general sense, but it's also trying to do things it's not meant to do and the emulators are weak, it wasn't until I popped an i7 into my system that this game stopped giving me sound problems, and my previous processor was a Q6600 overclocked to 3.5.

In the US, sales taxes are specific to each state. In Pennsylvania, where I live, sales tax on this would be an additional 6%. Areas like NYC have sales tax approaching 9% or higher, and other areas like New Hampshire don't have sales tax at all. Some online retailers, like Amazon, will apply the sales tax of the area the item is being shipped to. Edit:

The problem with a PC is, that all of those games require a really great computer. (Which are extremely expensive) If your willing to pay about 700$ - 1800$ a PC is the best thing you'll ever own. (Okay maybe not BEST thing) And With your game preference I'd go 360. (Coming from a PC/PS3 Gamer)

I am confused. So do you sit on chair and play, or is it just so you wheel your tv somewhere and then you sit on another chair to play?

I'd say realistically, 5 is an okay game. We're just too used to ign and other large gaming sites giving away 9/10's willy nilly. I'd rate Portal 2 7/10 or 8/10 as well because I think it could've been much better. In the original Portal, they put you in a small room and said "Here's the exit. Good luck." There wasn't much of a storyline, but it was enough to keep me interested. The puzzles were why I played the game (after all it is a puzzle-based game.) In the second one, though, I felt as if they emphasized the storyline too much. The game was less, "here's the exit, solve the puzzle" and more "you're in between cutscenes right now, find your way to the next part." The puzzles were a lot easier as well, but that was since they decided to give you such an open atmosphere. Instead of being in a small room being able to throw around your portal in hopes of solving a puzzle, you tend to find yourself in monstrous underground taverns where you had to guess where to shoot your portal to get to the next part. That being said, Portal 2 really is a good game. I got my money's worth. I got some laughs out of it. The game has both a great aesthetic and graphical presentation of the Portal world. It's a good looking game, and it's fun. Ultimately, the most beautiful thing about the Portal series is how the developer has been able to seamlessly integrate a tutorial within the gameplay without the player noticing. You learn to use portals as you use them. Without breaking the immersion factor, the game is able to put you into the mindset of ... well... thinking with portals.

3651, steam username: warwolf940. My offering is the story of my last night of my freshman year of college. Picture the scene: It's almost midnight, still Thursday though, and here I am packing all of my stuff up. Bins of clothes, boxes of books, and bags of rocks (I'm a geology student) line my section of the hallway. The room across the hall is down to a single occupant, Ryan, and he is bored as hell. My pal Arren is in the same boat. And look, here comes our mutual female friend, Kaitlin! I stop my toils to greet my drinking buddies, and we all settle down in Ryan's room. Conversations commence, and without too much effort, the topic turns to a threesome Kaitlin had over spring break. Ryan and Arren get a twinkle in their eyes, and slyly suggest Kaitlin partakes in another ménage à trois. Kaitlin initially refuses, but after some talking and cajoling, she starts to give in. She thinks Ryan and Arren are attractive young men, but what would her third friend, sirhopsalot, think if she went through with it? Kaitlin goes out to the hallway to consult with another female friend. Meanwhile, Ryan, Arren, and I are doubled over in silent laughter on the floor. Kaitlin comes back in the room. Her formerly firm rejection has melted to nothingness. We could see the consent in her eyes. I stood up, went to my room, gave them two condoms, and went back to packing up. The door closed and all was quiet. A solid 45 minutes later, the door opens, revealing a shame-faced Kaitlin, and two guys that have awestruck faces. They couldn't believe it actually just happened. Kaitlin walks away without uttering a further word. I asked if they actually went through with it. They did. They did more than that. The rug-burn on their knees was proof enough. An Eiffel Tower had been composed of flesh and lust, and maybe just a little bit of anal too. I gave them hand sanitizer and we agreed to never speak to each other about it again.

972 3261 Interesting something.... once, my glassblowing partner had a few too many drinks. Taking advantage (as all good friends should) we got him to agree to make a turtle with human genitalia. Which gender, you ask? Both. He woke up the next morning with a note to himself on his phone saying 'transgender turtle' and no memory of how it got there or what it meant. Needless to say, he was rather confused. We gladly filled him in. It took him 6 months to finally be coerced into following through, but eventually he did.

Just a few days ago I was dying to eat lunch without holding my sick, clingy baby. So I turned on the ps3 know that netfli and blues clues were moments away and I would soon be eating my food with two hands.... unfortunately blues clues looked a lot like your game and I ended up eating leftover cut up hotdog.

One important design choice is the power of imagination. Hitchcock, the master of psychological thrillers, relies a lot on the principle that the mere suggestion of horror can be much more powerful than the horror itself revealed. The hidden danger is always a lot scarier, because it is unknown, therefore your mental state prepares for every possible alternative it can think of, to the point of making you paranoid. Lovecraft (and inspired works) of course takes this one step further by making their horror not only unknown but unknowable, unfathomable, that however long you sit staring at it you will never comprehend how neck deep in darkness and utter peril you are. Making you aware of your own limitations as a human being is a very powerful source of anxiety, endurance bars, sanity bars, the Blink bar from SCP Containment Breach, collapses, all work very well. This transfers very directly to video games, little unknown background sounds will instantly trigger your fear and alertness, movement in the shadows, scrapings on the wall, etc. Amnesia banks a lot on this principle, flashing its monsters in front of your eyes only to draw them away from you for a good third of the game, that and the water sequence, a most well hidden danger: where has it gone? Dare I move from my safe point ? This is one of the most fundamental, most deeply rooted source of fear and stress in animal psychology. Another element I find very efficient in inducing stress is the feeling of dread: Open the door, oh no not that one again . A zone composed of nothing but very sparsely located yet very tough, very technical monsters is quite effective, especially in scarce resource/ no save point circumstances. One of the best ways of doing it is a monster that induces permanent stalemate against it, capable of killing you instantly or causing serious damage, but easy enough to dodge if you're not attacking it at the same time, the Regeneradors in RE4 go one step further by preventing slow whittling of their strength, going up against one is a real gambit. Trying to attack it exposes you to its attacks and presents major risk to your health: here, it's a danger you know all too well, having grappled with it many times before, and again coming back to reflecting your own limitations, it makes you feel you're simply not able to both attack it and dodge its attacks.

I can't help but notice the article is indeed from 2012, but I bought the Valve Complete Pack in 2009. It was the single thing I wanted for my birthday, and I ended up asking people for money instead of anything else when they asked what I wanted so I could raise enough collectively to afford it.

These people are like the rats in the maze that the game jokes about you being. They feel SO smart and intelligent because they finally GOT SOMETHING.People who fell in love with portal paraphernalia(that can't be right but Google says it is) are too stupid to get the concept that they were a lab rat and accomplished and experienced nothing special.

I played Tera through a friends account to see if I was interested. While I did enjoy the combat, my main issue was the lack of battlegrounds. I felt like the combat system would be at its finest during PvP, but I lost interest because there was no reliable way to PvP. (However, this was early in the summer, multiple months ago. They may have introduced BGs since.) Personally I enjoy the quests in GW2 more, because they offer you 4 methods of completing each one, instead of "Go get me 10 pig livers covered in bird beaks." that MMOs often resort to. I'm roughly level 35 at this point, playing fairly regularly during the headstart and much less since release, and I haven't found that leveling becomes cumbersome (yet). Also worth noting is that you can PvP anytime using World vs World, which is a Dark age of Camelot-esque Castle/keep warzone involving sieges and capturing outposts. This auto levels you to 80 for the duration, which removes the worry of being underleveled for PvP, while still making items relevant enough that 1v1, the person with better items will do better. However, in the larger 50v50 scale, a level 1 boosted to 80 will still do comparable to a 40 boosted to level 80. I cannot recall whether you can duel people, nor have I looked into lategame content yet. The combat system of Tera is more engaging than GW2, but I find that while being simple, the combat system works well and has enough depth for PvP to be interesting. (Ie. I need to figure out the best combo of weapons to use as well as swap to so that I do enough damage while having enough CC.)

Basically he's saying not all servers respond to ping requests. Ping returns = server is on and responding to pings. Networking path is good. The service you need might still not be responding. Ping fails = server is off, or server is on and not responding to pings, or network path is bad.

true, but i figured my computer/local network wasnt the problem from the beginning i was playing it just fine until it just randomly crashed and started giving me this error, and i found the activation server info through my router interface so i kinda figured it was at least getting to and out of my router fine... that and i dont explicitly block outgoing connection at all unless i know what im blocking... this was in fact the last resort of troubleshooting i was going through before just breaking down and re-installing the game.... im willing to bet the authentication software on their end was down for some reason as the game works fine now my

Hey man, just trying to diversify the clusterfuck that is r/gaming. Guess I'll just go back to posting gemmity-gem gems. Hey guys, remember the gemmity gem gem Goldeneye? What about the gemmity gem Mario 64? Oh, don't forget the gemmity gem combo Banjo-Twooie and Legend of Zelda!!! Oh yea, who could forget the gemmity gem Goldeneye??? See what I'm getting at here Thorse? These "rules" to this subreddit are severely limiting what should be a broad spectrum of interests from people who love gaming. People seem to like this post; I've gotten positive comments from everyone except you. Maybe your rules are the problem, not the post.

Nobody is being unfair. You treat your customers like shit? Oh well, burned that bridge, now didn't ya? It's not like the always on DRM was the first time they fucked their customers. Remember starforce? That shit was literally worse than any malware I have seen in the past decade. In fact it is the only malware I have ever encountered in the wild that is actually able to destroy your hardware, now that's some shit. Just because some meek bitches are willing to be fucked by Ubi and then come back for more after they give a half-assed apology doesn't mean the rest of us are equally tolerant.

Goldeneye was the best Bond game but it didn't have anything to do with "Bond". It was just a really solid shooter. I think, more over, is that as a shooter it was quite focused. It wasn't jetsetting around the globe switching from first to third to stealth to driving, it was a focused shooter with missions that had objectives. Perhaps it was imply the timing and style also. When Goldeneye came out FPSs weren't really a thing (not for me anyway) so it was really the first experience I had with (what I consider to be) a GOOD shooter. By the time The World is Not Enough came out it had a different (even if it was similar) style that lacked something. The gunplay wasn't as good in some ways, but it was still an equally solid (imo) experience. When I played Quantum of Solice it was just a really average shooter. Nothing about it stood out. It felt a bit too on-rails like Call of Duty does. I remember playing a bit of Nightfire also but again nothing about it stood out to me. But in all of these games, "Bond" doesn't even enter my mind - even in the movies (where he is incrddibly cheesy more than anything). The character of Bond doesn't really exist to me so I don't find that to be a factor.

Heh. You are a guy who jumps to hasty conclusions. That will get you really far in life, pal. Doom is hardly dead; it has a small (couple hundred), close knit, but still very active mapping and modding community, and still has competitive leagues. I admit, I'm not sure I can say the same for Quake and Unreal, I play those a bit less, and for nostalgic purposes. And I imagine that portal is the one working its way to a decade old. It came out in 2007, same year as Modern Warfare. In essence, we've both been playing the same game for five years. However, I enjoy portal for the actual unique concept, pretty much the antithesis of "realistic combat" that CoD praises itself on. (And yet it still fails, and threw right out the window in recent hardware patches) It is that reason that as a game franchise, CoD gets my highest degree of contempt. It takes itself waaaaay too seriously, in every way imaginable. Even when you throw zombies in there, you manage to suck the fun out of doing it. Halo has a lot of the things I don't like, but I still give it props, it at least has some element of sci-fi/fantasy in there. Don't get me wrong, I played Halo once, for five minutes, put down the controller and never touched it again, but I still got a bit excited when I saw that Halo 4 trailer. Because I knew there was a lot of work put into this new chapter. But not CoD. They recycle the same old garbage year in and year out, and the lemmings shell out 60+ dollars every year. I have no qualms comparing the likes of anybody who buys CoD within a week of release to common rodentia. You, like rats, eat that garbage right up, and you love it so. Even when Activision fucks you in the ass, (Nuketown 2025 this cycle around, I'm far too busy having a life outside of video games to remember how they screwed you last time) you come crawling back, like an abused dog to his "well-meaning" master. Do you know what the worst part of CoD is? You want to know why I am going so far out of my way to prove my point? Its not the DLC. Its not the regenerating health. Its not the linear gameplay, nor the trite storylines. Hell, its not even the prepubscent shitheads. Most of the AAA titles of today have those, in abundance. I'll tell you what CoD has that they do not It's got you. It's got people like you, the hypemongers. All those ads that talk about how it is the most INCREDIBLE franchise ever, "Modern Warfare whatever the hell number is in the middle of the recycled logo this time", whatever the "new" game is being the "most anticipated game of ALL TIME". Why do they have to announce it to the world. If it is so anticipated, why announce it as such? Everybody clearly knows its about to happen! You can't leave well enough alone, either. Oh no, you have to say that "you like dead franchises" and imply that "you are wrong for not bowing down before the almighty CoD and sucking Activisions cock." Through this though, you made me rethink my opinion. You deserve CoD. Heck, throw a little bit of greed into your repertoire of amazing qualities and keep the game it all to yourself while you are at it.

The GAME itself isn't terrible, not close to a competitive level FPS, but a great game for its target audience (which does not include competitive/serious/hardcore gamers, which is one of the reasons you see a lot of hate for it). However, the industry ruining precedent of re-releasing the same re-skinned game every year without innovation solely for the purpose of milking cash from your fanbase is despicable. This game series alone proved that the EA sports formula also works for other genres and led to the large publicly traded publishers (namely EA and Activision) treating all of their AAA IP's like this. Many people did not like this change because the innovation usually delivered in new installments of a series seemed to disappear overnight as series started to pump out new installments on a yearly basis instead of every 2-3+ years when new technology actually merited the upgrade (as had been seen in the past). As an unfortunate side effect of this these major publishers also started buying out smaller develops who has popular work and attempted to apply the 1 a year formula to these new IP's as well and make some money. Sadly many of these develops did not survive this transition as the next installment of their game was rushed out to meet an unrealistic deadline and as this "new" installment would almost never be innovative, or even complete, and was not received well or did not sell well due to that fact alone which for the most part led to those development teams being sacked and the entire series killed off.

IT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY. This game has nothing to do with Rick Grimes, neither the tv show version or the comic book version. The game takes place in the comic book universe, but other than a few cameos in episode 1 and the zombies behaving as portrayed in the comic, you wouldn't know it. Get it.

Well, to start it off Call of Duty is actually a competitive level FPS because it is played in MLG and other pro-gaming circuits. While I'm still a fan of good ol' Counter-Strike and occasionally play quakelive though I'm not nearly as good as I was, that doesn't give me the right to try to undermine the legitimacy of other genres of competitive games. I do consider myself a competitive gamer since I pretty much play them exclusively and often have spectators or show up in DotA streams and I think the only people who hate on call of duty as a form of entertainment is geeks who take themselves too seriously or want to jump on the bandwagon without evaluating it objectively. On your next point that call of duty is ruined by being on a 1 year development cycle disallowing it from being able to incorporate new features causing it to be released again. I don't think you realized that point was fundamentally flawed, which also reflects on your lack of familiarity with the topic. Call of Duty is actually developed by two different studios and have staggered 2 year development cycles. Treyarch develops World at War and Black Ops and Infinity Ward (or what is left of it) develops Modern Warfare. While this is still a very short development cycle and they are definitely greedy for charging for things like map packs this is simply how you stay relevant in today's fast moving console marketplace. All of my console friends love when the new call of duty comes out because it means they can keep playing roughly the same game, but it has new features, new set of maps, new story, and a different spin and feel to keep it fresh. If they had a 4 year development cycle the Call of Duty playerbase would dwindle after 2 years with the same copy and new games like Halo 4 hitting the shelves. What traditionally has kept PC gaming communities alive and kicking for years is modding/customization. Do you think starcraft would stay popular without people constantly juicing it full of new custom maps, i'd say half or more of the people playing SCII right now are playing tower defense or some dota clone. Do you think Counter-Strike would have stayed so big without WCIII mod? Without surf maps? without deathrun, jailbreak, and zombiemod? Fat chance. Now take that lack of mod support and amplify it by what I said earlier, way more competition. Simply put you can't stay a leviathan ultra title for 4 years anymore with just a single disc copy. My last point is that people want "innovation" in the call of duty genre because they come straight off reddit not understanding the competitive gaming world. Competitive games are only fun if they're somewhat balanced. Adding new shit is a FANTASTIC way to ruin a competitive title. The same mother fuckers complaining that they barely change anything, are the people crying about how they thought it was better when it was just 3/5/7. Adding something like defensive killstreaks and point based streaks, new flashy pink dildos getting slung around the field are nothing, when at the same time it's becoming such a pinata of new shit it's bursting at the seams. Take a look at these so called "good" titles you talk about and look how rarely they make changes and how much that shifts the metagame. DotA 2 is the next big thing on the competitive scene and that shit is literally a pretty port of a 10 year old RTS custom map, they haven't changed shit. Counterstrike global offensive released recently and it is so similar to my beloved 1.6 in actual game that I can still use the same buymenu shortcuts and they added like 3 token guns that I wish they'd remove. It is pretty much IDENTICAL. Changing competitive games by any more than shuffling up the bells and whistles and adding some fancy new flair/maps is balance suicide.

You're fucking pathetic. You are exactly what you claim to be against. In a purely observational manner, the girl is unattractive. Sure, some people may find her cute, but she is objectively unattractive. Why can't people comment on the picture when she's in the picture? This isn't a picture of the painting, it's a picture of her holding a painting. The comment section is for commenting on the picture. How is it that you can only say positive things about the picture? This isn't 2nd grade where you only say nice things, because if it were that way then no one would ever say anything negative ever. It pisses me off that you're offended because YOU'RE different than the norm. The comment you're agreeing with claims that people have unreal expectations about women. That's fucking idiotic and makes a judgment about me and other people commenting based on the fact that we find an objectively unattractive girl unattractive.

I don't get people. They love to rip on people who like things outside of what they like. I like fat girls. It's my thing and what has always turned me on. I have had to put up with so much shit over the years because of it. When I would go out to the bars with my friends they would laughing say that we were going "hoggin'" and other such nonsense.

Of all the things I couldn't give a fuck about, I couldn't give a fuck about this comment the most.

Yes, and my point is that she will learn a lot less from that than drawing from nature. I stand by my football analogy - you'll probably learn something , but not very much. There's no reason not to pick up life drawing off the bat. You'll find your own technique eventually (it's not like there's only one you have to imitate and copying technique will teach you shit, because just knowing of a way a graphite is put on means little when taken out of context and not coming from a real understanding of the texture, lighting and volume) and it's not like you have to start at ultra-easy, do okay every time and only increase the difficulty when you decide it's time - it's not like failing hurts or costs you. Make 9 shitty portraits, the 10th will be better. You'll have a semi-shitty portrait and you're on a good road to a non-shitty one. disclaimer: I'm not trying to diss someone's work, or berate for trying. A copy is obviously less valuable than an original work, but that's beside the point. Just offering advice that it's not a very effective way of actually learning to draw.

Not to play devil's advocate, but you don't have to have a mental illness to do something like this. In fact, most known cases of mass murder in singular events, are done by ordinary people. Read, "The Lucifer Effect," or read the essay, "The Banality of Evil." Your environment plays a large part on how you develop as an individual. A lot of our sense of self comes from how we are perceived, and thus adapt to our environments. You may identify as a "loner", but maybe not the same "loner" that Lanza may have considered himself to be. A lot of these types of "rampage killings" are a ritual that involves the killer formally "opting out" of society. Usually these killers don't even fit in with the social "out group."

I had to write a research paper my junior year of highschool about video games, I included a paragraph about video games and video game violence that really clears up the mist when it comes to issue of video games causing violence: ....to find the cause for those outbreaks in the first place, and to fix or get rid of it so as to prevent these horrible events from taking place in the future, but the argument of attributing video game violence to these outbreaks is quite flawed. “This is the classic error of using a high-base-rate (very common) behavior to explain a low-base-rate (rare) behavior”, says Christopher J. Ferguson, an assistant professor of behavioral sciences and criminal justice at Texas A&M University, “Using video-game-playing habits to predict school shootings is about as useful as noting that most or all school shooters were in the habit of wearing sneakers and concluding that sneakers must be responsible for such violence”. The fact that people are even beginning to attribute video games as the cause for major society changing events, such as school shootings and extremely violent or dangerous behaviors, further adds to the true influence video games have on society in the first place. But the ignorance that non-gamers have towards games to the point that they try to ban certain games based upon erroneous logic is something that further highlights the societal tensions that games have created between passionate gamers and dispassionate non-gamers. It is a very common conflict and one that will only continue to grow as the unlimited future potential of games is slowly but surely playing out

look at the last year before every school shooters murder spree and you will see isolation, teasing, and general assholes who attempt to make their life worse. there are tons of mentally ill people, but very few institutions, we get thrown in opiate addiction clinics if were lucky and if we aren't lucky we go to jail. Prime and simple, dont treat people like shit and they wont have that hatred within them that allows them to do such things. you think lanza or the vt shooter just one day snapped? I bet you if you could ask them most school shooters would tell you that they hate the kids they went to school with. More so than the average angsty teen i can bet you that they were universally teased. I can garantee you that they didnt think they could find help from teachers or administrators or even parents. We need teachers that are trained to deal with these emotionally abused children. Its not that the mentally ill have a predisposition for mass murder, its that they cant handle the pressure kids put on kids. You fix these things in elementary school, you have no need for armed guards in highschools and middleschools. Guns arent the problem, kids are. edit: source, ive been on both sides of this, the asshole, and the teased. Ive seen that anger and ive felt that anger, and i can understand how someone whose mind isnt as adapted to social situations could easily snap. And also ive been to schools where kids would say things after making fun of someone like "that kids going to bring a gun to school one day" or "i bet you he kills himself or someone else", ive also seen kids say things like "better stay on his good side so he spares you when he brings a gun"

What is this, the 80's? Video Game do not isolate the people who play them like they used to. Nor do "violent" games "encourage gamers to play longer" (Source? I've never seen such a thing). If you're going to state things, cite your sources. I've not seen anything indicate that "violent" games make gamers play any longer than any engaging game (of any type).

But by that logic, why regulate anything? Crack-heads will find a way to smoke crack, why make it illegal? Pregnant women will find a way to abort, why fight roe v wade? Saying "criminals will find a way" is only a way to avoid controlling access to the item that makes committing crimes like these so large scale and efficient.

It's a constitutional right that Americans have to bear arms.

LOL. You fucking retard. Does everything that's written down on paper make complete sense? In that case, the Bible is 100% fact.

Best part of the mission: after sneaking under the trucks and out of that area, climbing the fire escape of the nearby apartment building to the top. Inside, you find a [piece of intel and Stinger missiles] (/spoiler). Then backtracking and firing one off, destroying the helicopter, and making a run back to where MacMillan is, through the building. That's when you just stand and watch everyone come after you. It's really fun fighting them all. Later, when you find the dog , shooting it and trying to survive when an entire pack shows up.

God damn it, I know exactly where you got that shirt from. Backstory: About six years ago or so, a close friend of mine and I were hanging out when I started drawing video game characters on her whiteboard, as I often do. I drew a picture of Kirby saying the above phrase. She laughed and I mentioned that it should be on a shirt. She mentioned it to her friend who happened to write webcomic. Now forgive me for forgetting the name of the webcomic, but it had a kid with a basketball face and some kind of anthropomorphic critter. Anyway, before I know it, he's selling the goddamned shirt and gives me a free one- the very shirt that you're wearing right now. I was miffed about the situation and disappointed in the shitty design, but what can you do? She claimed he meant no harm and the t-shirt was kind of a "thank you". The funny thing was, a couple months later VG cats ran their Valentines Day comic and a bunch of people on the forum for the "other webcomic" were accusing VG Cats of stealing the idea. At the end of the day, I said "fuck it", realized that it didn't matter because it's a copyrighted character in the first place and tossed the shirt.

I don't know why but I can't read it, can someone please give me a

Looks good but my faith in humanity tells me that it's gonna be a game where you have alot of fun at the start of the game, even some months until one day comes where you are picking some apples and out of nowhere your town is assraped by an army called "CoD4everX0X0X" who either bought ingame weapons with real money or spend 24/7 "farming" by killing noobs in various spawnpoints. Yeah this is what I think is gonna happen.

These are sold in a lot of tourist attraction areas. Walked down the strip in Gatlinburg last week, 4 shops sold the shield sword combo, some of different sizes. These posts are getting a little old.

This can't get enough upvotes. I cannot think of a single instance where "should of" makes any sense. It's always "should have" or maybe "should've" if you're feeling informal. Should is an "auxiliarly" or "helping" verb, so it must be followed by a verb/verb phrase, such as "do" or "have done" or "be doing." It should not be followed by a preposition, like "of". You would never say "should for bought" or "should below bought," would you? The exception is when the verb/verb phrase is implied. eg. "I eat more than I should," meaning, "I eat more than I should eat."

Did you even read any of those articles or just copy and paste them from google? Half of them are about junk-science and a good deal of the remaining isn't even pertinent to this case. The few points i see somewhat well documented... (and here i had to find the real science behind it myself with google scholar, you should try it, even when you just wanna copy+paste it will bring about a more convincing case for you). ...are links to "anti-social behavior", which 1. Doesn't seem to be proven to be a developmental issue necessarily (It may be the case that watching TV or sitting at the computer is just anti-social in kids as much as it is in adults) and 2. definitions of the behavioral issues that are looked for, are largely not established as part of the research but rather taken from such sources as the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). In this context it is important to appreciate that the DSM is largely agreed to be in a sense a "necessary evil" existing in clinical psychology only because we have no good 'theory of mind' and we needed a way to deal with pathological behaviors and mental disabilities other than putting them all in straightjackets, stuffing them in prisons and stripping them of rights. What needs to be made clear here is that... for us to say that TV or computer use is bad for childhood development, it needs to be bad in and of itself , not just bad because it takes time away from other sources of learning. The fact that i play starcraft now, when i should be studying, cannot be said to make me dumber, just because it wastes time that could have otherwise be used to studying. In this sense it scientifically established that early childhood development requires social interaction and lots of physical "play". The place most of this junk-science goes wrong is where it tries to say that TV and other media is "bad", when it may in fact be great learning... but when you spend all your time doing it, you obviously don't have time for other important activities.

When you finish OoS/OoA, you receive a so called "hero code" that you can enter in the other game (finish seasons, use code in ages, and reverse) which will allow the player to play the regular story with much additions and changes. For example, in seasons, you're no longer saving the oracle but you're now saving zelda. I could explain more changes but it'd require a fuckload of spoiler tags.

Honestly, it's a good game. But it's not THAT good. The relationship between Booker and Elizabeth is great. They have a good repertoire. The same goes for the Lutece's. The story is cool and the ending is good too. However, this is not an awesome game as far as playing the game goes. The AI is stupid. The battles lack variety. There are like 7-8 different enemies you face. The enviroment is really cool, the canon makes it even more awesome, but as far as combat enviroments it's not really that inspiring. What makes you want to play more is the story. You want to know what happends next. And that's ok. But it kinda holds back the game; You have little reason to re-play the game after you completed it. Little more to explore and the combat, as I said earlier, is repedative and not at all challenging - not even at the hardest difficulty. No real sidemissions or sidetracking. No reason to backtrack and no other real objectives other than moving the story forward.

This game just doesn't work for LoZ's core concepts, I'm not talking intricate lore, I'm talking about what every single game is about. It's literally the same people fighting as reincarnations over and over again, and this means Link basically isn't himself in this game. People keep saying Link is naive, "lol he's so dumb doesn't know what's going just blindly fights random stuff in forests and caves lol so naive". No, He's not. He doesn't always have the entire story of what's happening in the world he's in, BUT he always has some clue as to what's bad and what's good and he fights for that cause. And a lot of the crap he deals with when he's fighting for the could only be done by someone with his Tri-force (courage) The things he's fought as a KID is insane. The stuff that goes down in MM is nuts especially for a kid. The fact that Zelda will have the same courage as Link ruins the purpose of his Tri-force and place in the game... It just doesn't work.

Here's the issue I see. LoZ games suffer from the trope of damsel in distress. Some princess is too helpless to help herself so some guy HAS to come in and save the day. Every once in awhile, this is a decent plot point. It's been overused to the point of being a trope. I understand this. If you simply change the names but leave the actions the same, you've gone nowhere. Equality is about the power to be equal. Not the same. Equal. 5+3 equal to 2+6. Blatantly changing the names for the sake of a gender swap makes very little sense. A similar story with new characters that aren't already defined, okay. But isn't the "tomboy" female hero also a trope? I don't see why Princess Zelda from Ocarina of Time couldn't just have her own game where she saves the day instead of this nonsense.

I think this is a wonderful way to reverse gender stereotypes. In this version, Zelda gets to experience the typically male role of disposability. The kingdom and the prince are in danger, and this time it is the female who has to put her career and future on hold in order to rescue them both. Risking life and limb at every turn, Zelda must overcome almost overwhelming obstacles in order to save a man and a kingdom from problems she did not herself create. If and ONLY if she manages to prevail, she'll be considered a hero, and otherwise she'll simply be another battlefield casualty, her sacrifice a sad but appropriate use for females in order to protect the land and its much more valuable males and children from harm. It is her ability to overcome both the obstacles and her own disposability in an uncaring world which makes her heroic.

Quite honestly, I would appreciate if there were more diverse character selection in games, but I don't necessarily have a problem with people doing games how they do them. I agree that it is obnoxious when games specifically mold minorities to certain stereotypes (ie scantily-clad women and/or anything you might find in a GTA game) but what I actually find more annoying is a much more common and subtle template in basically every form of entertainment: where you have the main character as a ^white male and a female side character who plays the role of the strong feminist, so media can say they're being feminist while they're really being PC but not actually doing anything very differently.

hmm... I think that's stretching rule 1's definition a tad... Gabe Newell is clearly gaming related. It's not a meme, or a reaction GIF. That said, he's holding 3 fingers up, which helps to aid the joke. I'd accept "This joke is stupid and I hate it" because that's indicative of what you'd like to/ not like to see. I don't accept it getting bashed simply because of rules it may or may not be breaking.

AC1 was an ambitious new IP. I loved it even though it was repetitious and had many flaws. AC1 was endearing and I was instantly a fan. AC2 was everything I wanted in an AC sequel and more. Loved the characters. Loved the cityscape. The combat was brutal and elegant. AC: Brotherhood blew me away. I thought Brotherhood was going to be a cash-grab, but it surpassed the previous title in every way possible. Then AC: Revelations came out. They started to beat a dead horse at this point. We were tired of Ezio. A fresh face was desperately needed in the series and all we got was some extended content toted as a full game. AC3.. boring lead character; story more convoluted than possibly imagined; an ending that just sputters instead of explodes; stealth completely eliminated; BORING.ASS.HORSE.RIDING.EVERYWHERE. A glorified tech demo for ship battles in their next installment. Now we're getting a new AC that should've just been in place of AC3, but feels too little too late in that regard.

Well, I won't agree with your teacher on her advice to delete video games, and certainly not on the basis that they're some sort of waste of time. It's plain out-of-bounds judgment there. Some people pass the time gardening, or restoring vehicles, or collecting stamps -- to me, those seem like wastes of time, but I won't tell anyone to stop doing those things, since they're presumably their favorite ways to pass time. However, your teacher probably has good intentions, and to a certain extent, yes, you'd probably be better off (in terms of knowledge) reading about new things 2-3 hours of day instead of playing video games. But that comes at a sacrifice of one's freedom to enjoy their hobby, which affects well-being and happiness. As for people making money off of video games: if people can do it, great. But, yes, they're no different from pro poker players or pro billiards players, and I can actually understand and almost agree with your teacher here. These types of people don't really add that much value to society, and these jobs are typically part of a grander close-to-zero-sum industries.... as in, for someone to make money in, say, poker, it means that some people had to lose money. The most value that pro gamers add to society is probably through sponsorship; otherwise, they really don't do much to add to the GDP of a country. It's why you can't compare it to those who work in the TV/movie industry. First of all, a simple movie production creates a ton of jobs, and always adds to the local economy of where they're filming. There are hard-working people who work behind the camera, busting their asses to make sure that the movie is entertaining and profitable, and they add value to society and the economy in this way. They're not gaining from someone else's losses , like in professional poker or professional gaming. They provide goods and/or services, they receive wages/salary. Even actors provide more value to society than pro gamers (since actors provide a service to their audience by acting), although there is increasingly a demand for watching pro gamers play games. But then again, that's not your point or question (pro gamers and their entertainment value). But in terms of ways to pass the time.... YES, it's hypocritical to say that playing video games is a waste of time, but watching TV shows and movies isn't. But, again, being a professional gamer is totally different from being a professional actor or crew-member -- pro gamers don't really add much to the economy (you could erase pro gaming and the world wouldn't skip a beat).

No, it won't. Maybe on occasion, but most definitely not across the board. Why? It's 1 case. And frankly, it's not even a good one. Business schools teach on levels of certainty. What works, what doesn't. They teach there lessons based on many, many cases. We know the concepts of supply and demand because it has been studied and recorded over many, many years. We do not study one case. This post is totally reeks of grandiose delusions. This whole "battle" between Sony and Microsoft has barely even begun. Maybe in 5 years we can start evaluating what happened. But it's so arrogant to assume this case will be taught around the world in business schools.

I'm one of those. I walked into Injustice being played, asked to try and completely slay it. Press way too hard, lots of swearing and controller moving but I absolutely kill it. Beat the records, unlock a ton of stuff. Wasn't a fluke, do it pretty much every time. BF gets pissed off b/c he couldn't beat Joker a couple times in a row (On the higher difficulty setting he is quite hard. Same with Catwoman. That bitch.) I ask if I can give it a try and end up nailing it. Happens on more than one occasion. I think there's an artistry in button mashing. What I lack in combos or special moves I make up in time bonuses etc. It's when I sit and think about the combos that I get hit and lose. Mind you I do score the most insane combos remember and I will generally get it at least another time or two because I try to repeat it, but I don't care that much to be honest. I'm too busy beating shiz up.

I used to have one of these and it was terrible. Left and right on the D pad correspond to turning your hand inward or outward from the wrist. I hated this thing because I can do maybe 30 degrees to the outside and a spectacular 1 degree to the inside.

The setting is post-apocalyptic but there is definitely fighting between two opposing sides. Please don't make me define war :( But perhaps subtleties was the wrong word. I suppose I meant underlying motifs and parallels to the real world. Neither side was really the good guys. The rebels were fighting the oppressive 33rd, but were being led by the CIA and ended up dooming the city through their actions ordered by Riggs. The 33rd were obviously not heroes when the game takes place, but they are not all evil either. The dying soldier you talk to after using the white phosphorus mortar for example says "we were just trying to help" the civilians you just inadvertently massacred. Gould is another example of a good person working for the wrong people. He is CIA, but his dying words were "get to the gate," trying to tell the player's squad where the innocent people are being held so they can help. In my opinion these situations strongly reflect modern wars. There are good people on both sides even if the men who lead them have ill intentions. Also, I believe the 33rd serves as a good metaphor for out involvement in the Middle-East. The game hints that the 33rd and Lt. Colonel Konrad are seen as heroes at the start of the game. However, even though Konrad was only trying to help the people of Dubai, by the end of the game it is apparent that the 33rd are doing more harm than good. This reflects the U.S.'s tendencies to act as world police but end up destabilizing the area instead of bettering the situation. Finally I thought the reflections of Walker's growing mental instability was well done, especially when you hallucinate enemies as being Adams or Lugo and must kill them while they plea/guilt trip you. Also the prologue was well don't. No matter what ending you do it is clear that Walker if seriously fucked up. Either he kills those trying to help him (PTSD is not pretty) or live knowing that he is dead inside. Also, the controlling intelligence organization with the "ends justify the means" attitude is pretty relevant right now. There is a lot more I could talk about but I think I have said more than enough right now.

Bigger Kinect =wider fov which means the Kinect will work in small rooms. The old Kinect wasn't wide enough,limiting the fov, and making it not work in small rooms, or only seeing half of you.

See, that's a shit excuse . There are some features, such as the always online thing, that had some merit. I can see the utility, and they aptly explained it during the demonstrations (environments being affected by other players and such). However, the used game DRM and similar things were NOTHING but a money grab, that obviously would cause massive issues. It's not like the used game market is small. They just figured it wouldn't be enough to stop them. I do agree that the end result is positive for the consumers, however I disagree that we should just accept that businesses should always be trying to fuck customers over, and we should be forced to draw the line constantly. It's not like they don't have millions spent in marketing to understand the users. They could have gone to ANYONE and said 'how would you feel about used games not being allowed on the Xbox One', and no one would have said 'that'd be fine.'

Nah I think it's just a case of you probably spending a lot of time with specific editors (reading reviews, watching vids, listening to podcasts ect.) and then when they left you maybe lost interest and now find the new editors boring. IMO daemon hatfield, Greg miller, Colin moriarty, Justin Davis, and Brian Altano are all editors that have personality. Sure I have different gaming opinions than most of them but in general their obviously passionate about games which is important. Even newer editors like Mitch dyer, Dan Stapleton, Ryan mcaffery and Andrew goldfarb are pretty good. I think a lot of people shit on ign just because they are the biggest gaming site, which means they have the most visability and are more likely to offend someone-- probably a review they disagree with.

It personally offends me because people worship Skyrim as if it is the single greatest game of the decade. It offends me that the media has blown Skyrim up to be this amazing game. It offends me because people who don't even game hop onto the Skyrim bandwagon and call themselves a gamer. It offends me because very few people talk about Skyrims flaws. Near every review or opinion on Skyrim calls it unending and impossible to finish...but fails to mention everything starts looking the same. I have no issue with what people play, only that better games have come and gone and Skyrim gets the crowning medal from media to be a piece of art.

The humble bundle is a charity, so a lot of the time people spend a lot more than they need to so that the money goes to a good cause.