I don't know where you come off with the argument that Google is trying to control the Internet. How is it going to do that by simply cataloging data and allowing people to search it?
Because the people that control the data control everything. We are quickly becoming a networked species...WMD's, guns, "dirty bombs"...these are no longer viable weapons except in little wars. The true fights are being fought with data, and Google likely has more data stored than any other organization in the entire world, be it private or government. That is how they would control the Internet...by knowing more about it than any other group of people.
As far as Microsoft and it's desktop monopoly, I think given some choice between a buggy, easily exploitable OS, with a bare minimum of any kind of security model, and a truly secure OS that doesn't allow spammers to take control of a PC to become part of a botnet, most folks would probably choose the more secure, non-monopoly OS. The biggest problem is that up until the last few years, most consumers didn't know they had a choice.
While I mostly agree with you, people did know they had a choice. Apple isn't exactly a newcomer in the home computing sector...people have known about them for years. They just haven't changed over for...well, for whatever reason they haven't. It's not like Microsoft put themselves here...they didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and told them that they HAD to by Microsoft products. The market is what made Microsoft a monopoly. Yes, Microsoft abuses their position in the marketplace, but they didn't put themselves there...the software market did.
As far as Linux goes, I will agree, many people didn't know and STILL don't know that it's out there despite it's increased mainstream media coverage...every year though, more and more people are moving from Windows to other platforms... Change takes time, sometimes longer than others.
As far as it being easily exploitable...it really is not that difficult to lock down a Windows machine...On my PC at home that I use for browsing the internet or online gaming, I have ZoneAlarm, AVG, and Spybot. Between these three FREE programs, and just a pinch of discretion in terms of my internet habits, I haven't had a single virus or bit of spyware in over three years...on top of that, excluding system or hardware updates, I haven't had to reboot in nearly 8 months.
See, that's the thing...I'm not really one to gravitate towards conspiracy theories...still, I think that Google started off with some really great ideas, the government caught wind of them, offered them huge amounts of cash that no one could possibly ignore, and they both shook hands in the shadows.
You know, I don't think it's a secret that Microsoft controls what many consider to be a monopoly (I personally don't think they are a monopoly, but then again I don't think Microsoft is the only (or even the fifth) software developer out there...but I digress.
Just because it's the pot calling the kettle black, or being crybabies, or anything else you folks here on teh dot like to toss around in regards to Microsoft...does that make them wrong?
I don't know about you all, but I am WAY more worried about Google than I am about Microsoft. So the company attempts to create a monopoly and have their OS everywhere...big deal. Eventually, the general public will wise up and move to either OSX or Linux, and Microsoft's stranglehold will dissipate.
Are you people seriously worried about Microsoft when Google is quickly becoming the private sector equivalent to the CIA? I mean, come on...they track, store, and record EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. Google is far and away the world's most popular search engine...that, combined with the mountains of data that they store, and combined with the number of various companies that they are buying up, with a dash of the number of web pages that have ad links FROM Google on them...do you see what I am saying?
Microsoft may be running a monopoly on the operating system market, but Google is very slowly (so slowly you won't even notice...) building a monopoly on the control of the Internet and our very lives.
Google is two steps away from becoming a government agency. Watch.
If what you are saying is true, does that mean I could take the cross and say that to me, it's symbolism is important to my religion? What if my religion was based upon all of the things that christianity hated? What if my religion was called "assfucking homosexual thiefism"? You know...What if I had a cross made with two men hobnobbing each other... and to me, this truly, honestly, was a divine symbol that represented my view of an infinite deity that created everything. Do you honestly think christians the world over would just shrug, and say "well, it's what it means to him...no harm no foul."
I agree with you, different symbols mean different things to different people. I know my example is an extremely unlikely one, and certainly a childish one... Still, to say that people don't care how others interpret their symbols is ludicrous. YOU might not personally care, but I assure you the majority of religious folk do. Prove me wrong; walk into a church wearing an inverted cross and see how long you are there before they try to throw you out.
My response to your post is from a response I gave to another person in this thread:
How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion?
Insofar as the OP is concerned, yes, I will agree what he was saying could be considered bigotry.
Christians didn't 'steal' other cultures methods of celebration. Other cultures brought their methods of celebration as they converted and in many cases have been adopted by christians as a whole.
So...what you are saying is, is that "as a whole", christianity accepted the methods of celebration that other cultures used...those other cultures being the same ones that were accused of working in-tandem with the devil, and considered bad enough to be destroyed in mass numbers?
I'm not saying christianity is the only religion that has blood on it's hands...the majority of religions do, in some form or another. What I'm trying to understand though is what sense does it make to adopt the celebrations from a group of people that the CHURCH THEMSELVES decided were agents and tools for the devil?
If I were a christian (I'm not...I wouldn't consider myself anything, insofar as religion is concerned) the very idea that the church accepted and actually ENCOURAGED the celebrations brought forward by converts from a religion that was supposed to be about devil worship and blasphemy of MY god would be enough for me to secede from the church completely.
How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion?
I know this conversation is mostly dead, but hopefully you will notice my response to your post.
I can understand if you don't want to have a violent game like Conan in your house if you have children...but other then that reason, why would that stop you from playing something you enjoy?
I only say this because of where the content originates from...the Conan novels were full of grisly violence, sex all over the place, and just generally "mature" themes (just like the Bible...hey, imagine that!)
All I'm saying is it wouldn't feel very "Conan" if the presentation wasn't on par with the source material...case in point, I remember playing Call of Duty when it was first released, and my dad walked into the room. He watched for a couple of minutes, and then said "Why is there no blood?" My response was "I suppose it's so younger people can play it..." His response: "Fantastic...it's a recruiting tool. Now these younger kids that are able to play this GAME because it has no blood in it will have an inaccurate depiction of how horrible and violent war truely is."
I didn't think much of it then, but he has an excellent point. I'm not saying you should expose your children to mass amounts of violence when they are 5 years old...what I am saying, however, is that you shouldn't try to shield them from it either. They WILL see it one day in one form or another...what better time and place for them to see it than under your supervision where they can ask questions and get answers?
(Note, I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your kids or anything...that is the most rude thing a person can do. I'm simply trying to offer you a different perspective to think about. Happy New Year!)
I think what the OP was trying to say was that the pagan religion of Yule was originally modified by Christians in an attempt to a. convert pagans over to christianity b. "gloss over" the pagan holiday in an attempt to prevent other people from discovering it, becomming curious, and partaking in it and c. recently has been perpetuated in an attempt to gain mass amounts of money from the general public.
This is actually true with most christian holidays. This is not bigotry against christianity, it's the truth. Just like the jews being poor and dirty in The Passion wasn't bigotry, it was the truth...jews were poor and dirty back then. Just like saying black people have big lips isn't racist...it's simply the truth; they do in fact have big lips.
If anything, modern-day christians should be more pissed than modern-day pagans about this...the holiday that is supposed to celebrate the birth of their saviour is simply a retooling of a much older pagan celebration once considered by the church to be inspired by the devil. If as a christian that doesn't piss you off...you need to read this paragraph again.
Yes, that was definitely a highlight as well:-) It actually isn't that awesome on it's own...but compared to what I was using before, it's awesome (then again, I think anything would be...24" tube TV doesn't really have anything to offer 8D )
It's easy to spot...watch an episode from season 4 or season 5, and then right after that watch an episode from season 1 or season 2...you will notice it big time, trust me.
"They say rock 'n' roll is the devil's music. Well, let's say that it is; I've got news for you. Let's say that rock'n'roll is the devil's music and we know it for a fact to be the absolutely, unequivocally true. At least he fucking jams! Ha ha ha ha! Okay? Did you hear that correctly? If it's a choice between eternal hell and good tunes and eternal heaven and new kids on the fuckin' block... I'm gonna be surfing on the lake of fire, rocking out, high five at Satan every time I pass the motherfucking shore." -Bill Hicks
I stopped liking Family Guy when they made every character the same...each individual character used to be entirely unique with their own personalities and type of humour...Stewie especially. Recently (as in, within the past 2-3 seasons) they have all kind of melted together into one personality spread across multiple people...just doesn't have the same punch that it used to...
That was actually an episode from a few seasons back...many people rip on South Park for just becoming crazy for the sake of crazy, but there is one thing that is abundantly clear...in the 11+ years that show has been on, it is quite obvious that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are no where even CLOSE to running out of original ideas. Outlandish, over the top, nothing like what the show used to be...but still original, creative, and just plain funny stuff.
You should keep watching it...it's an entirely different show than it was in it's first few seasons, but it's still a fantastic show. I dare say it's even better now than it used to be.../offtopic
Overall, many great memories from this year of gaming...nothing will compare to the summer of 2004 for gaming memories for me (closed beta of WoW, 15 friends, an empty house, a lot of water pipes, and half the summer taken off from work), but I would have to say these were my top 5 from the year (in no particular order):
1. Opening 15 minutes of BioShock. This was done with 5 friends around the couch, all of us huddled close together...home theater setup was turned way up high, my Tannoy PS 110-B sub rattling the floor, a gorgeous image on my HDTV...honestly, one of the most tense 15 minutes of gaming I have ever experienced.
2. First time I played a Wii. This was at a friends house way back in February. There were a total of 7 of us taking turns playing Wii sports...considering how often we host gaming parties or LAN parties, I knew the instant I started watching and playing that I had to get one.
3. Experiencing the story of Mass Effect. In my opinion, the greatest sci-fi universe ever conceived...buy the art book, amazing! I was actually a little frustrated when it ended primarily because I wasn't ready to finish it yet! Cannot wait for the second one...
4. Rainbow Six: Vegas on Live. Spent 16 straight hours (taking breaks every 4-5 hours to get food and goto the bathroom, of course) playing it the weekend I get my HDTV. I likely gained 20 pounds that weekend, but it was definitely a weekend to remember.
5. Playing through the Orange Box...Half-Life 2 is one of my all time favourite games, and I hadn't played it since early 2005. Seeing it on a big HDTV with an awesome surround system, coupled together with playing through Episode 1 and 2 to further the storyline (and yes, of course, playing Portal) was amazing. Ravenholm is absolutely terrifying at night with all the lights out and the system cranked!
So there they are, my top 5 gaming moments of 2007. There were plenty other great ones, to be sure, but these were the most memorable for me. A man chooses, a slave eats cake!
I think you were missing the point that I was responding to in regards to the OP...he said certain games weren't worth playing because they were played with a controller instead of a keyboard and mouse. Not because he couldn't afford to, not because he didn't agree with them morally, he said they were literally worthless because they were console games that used controllers and not PC games that used a keyboard/mouse combo.
If you don't want to buy a system or a game because you can't afford to or because you oppose of it morally, that's fine...I have no problem with that, there is nothing wrong with that. But refusing to play a game ONLY because it isn't a PC game is needlesly limiting yourself...if money isn't a factor, and morality isn't a factor, and the only thing preventing you from playing them is an elitest sense of view that console games are somehow inferior...I'm sorry, from the standpoint of someone who loves videogames, that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of.
Again. If you can't afford it or just simply don't morally agree with the message a game puts out, that's fine...but refusing to play the vast majority of games that are released simply because they are on a console is really only hurting one person: the elitest bastard who refuses to (or maybe just can't?) adapt to a different control scheme.
Just for reference, I'm 23 years old now. I have been playing video games every single day (literally...not a day has gone by that I haven't played for at least ten minutes, even if it's on my cell phone) since my sixth birthday. For a very long time, I have played violent video games...some would say I started playing violent video games at an age when someone that young shouldn't be (in case you were curious, my first violent game (and first game altogether) was NARC on NES.)
I have played countless hours of video games...gibbing friends, blowing up planes, slashing people apart with swords, and just generally being as destructive as possible. Violent video games have had a profound effect on me...they have desensitized me to violence.
Now, many people would say that is a bad thing; personally, I find it to be a good thing. I can give you a perfect example: From the ages of 18 to 22, I was a car mechanic. A buddy of mine lost two fingers in a metal radiator fan when the moron inside the car started it up, thinking we had given him the all clear signal (the all clear signal actually came from three bays down...and yes, the bay number was shouted along with the words "clear". The guy in the car was just a moron.) All of my coworkers around me were unable to help him, because they couldn't stand to look at his hand. While my manager was calling 911, I, totally unaffected by the two missing digits and exposed bone, was able to properly wrap it and position my coworker (due to him going into shock) until the ambulance arrived.
Something similar happened on a four wheeling trip. A guy we were wheeling with was exploring the trail up ahead a little bit (it had rained recently, and he was checking for stability). The guy slipped and fell, breaking his arm on a rock, his bone sticking out of his forearm. Again, unfazed, I was able to help him out and do what was necessary to help get him down off the mountain.
Many people suddenly panic when something violent and bloody happens, and that's how people get more hurt than they already are. Yes, video games have desensitized me to violence, and as a result I have been able to help people that I otherwise would have been powerless to help.
Desensitization is NOT a bad thing. It allows you to see past the violence that is occurring and to address the situation with a clear head, calm head. Desensitization is how one of my childhood friends was able to become a very effective EMT...blood and guts simply don't phase her, and she is able to approach the given situation without paying any attention to the gore that may present itself.
Independent in what way? How do I make my own multiplayer game for Wii?
by Independent, I thought you were refering to single player games. There is of course the XNA for the 360, and with the Wii there is WiiWare, even though there hasn't been anything released for it yet...I think everything planned for it is due starting early-to-mid 2008...check out the wikipedia article for more info on that.
Why is this the case? Is it that home theater PC setups are also "very few and far between"?
No, it's because there are very few PC games that actually support split screen. In fact, the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Serious Sam Second Encounter.
You are being rather rude. I'm done talking to you.
But you yourself said if it couldn't be played with a keyboard/mouse combo, it isn't worth playing...that is entirely inaccurate. Many of the greatest games of all time (not just my opinion, I'm refering to topping lists, polls, general consensus and such) were console exclusives....Now, I can understand playing primariliy PC games because you play shooters and RTS, that's fine...that makes sense. But don't just pass off ALL games on consoles because they aren't shoehorned into those two genres or because you use a controller instead of a mouse...as a gamer, you are missing out on a lot of history because of that way of thinking.
As far as your "PC vs Console" definition...I'm not even going to give it further response. You have taken it into the realm of stupidity, which I refuse to be a part of.
All three of the major consoles this generation have independent and split-screen games. Some PC games have split-screen as well, although they are very few and far between.
Regardless, the way that you talk about it makes you sound like an elitist ass. And btw, any TV that can output a 1080P signal is already putting out a higher resolution than 1600X1200....not to mention 1600X1200 isn't all that high for modern PC games...
As far as headshotting with a controller, it just takes some getting used to...if anything, it just means you are more skilled if you are able to. Being able to be just as proficient in an FPS using a mouse as you are using a controller is a great skill to have btw. You never know when a great shooter is going to be a console exclusive...Goldeneye, perhaps?
BTW, both the 360 AND the PS3 can output a 1080p signal. Just thought you would like to know.
Being able to modify PC games, that I will definately agree with you on...Oblivion is the perfect example of that, and Team Fortress 2/Portal will both be fantastic examples of it as well, once the community spends some more time with them.
Still, don't entirely write off consoles....you are really limiting yourself from playing some fantastic games.
What is the essential difference between a PC and a "console"? Is it largely that the maker of a "console" refuses to provide "methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a [...] work in that [console] from a modified version of its Corresponding Source" to end users? If so, would that make Mr. Stallman a moron because GPLv3 games don't run on consoles by definition?
The essential difference is a PC is a PC and a console is something such as an Xbox, a Playstation, a Dreamcast...come on, stop nitpicking.
Given the $1,350 price tag to own all three consoles with even one controller (Xbox: $450 incl. two years of Live Gold; PS3: $500; Wii: $400 from a scalper), does a limited income make a player "fake", or just not "hardcore"?
No, a limited income doesn't make a player fake...if they can only afford one system, then fine. That's something they have to deal with, not their fault. But if they refuse to buy a system because it is manufactured by a certain company as opposed to choosing the system that has the most games they are interested in (especially important if they are limited to one system), THEN they are fake.
Is DDR or Guitar Hero more fun with a keyboard than with its intended controller?
No, it isn't more fun. But I wasn't referring to specific games, and neither was the OP. He simply said if it couldn't be played with a keyboard/mouse, it wasn't worth playing. Would you say God of War wasn't worth playing? Or perhaps Ninja Gaiden Black? Or maybe Ico/Shadow of the Colossus, or Okami, or the Zelda series or the Metroid series...or maybe Crackdown, or Uncharted...see what I mean?
And how many keyboards and mice can I connect to a single PC running games for Windows when I have friends over?
Usually one...that's why PC's are typically used for LAN parties. If none of your friends have PC's and you enjoy playing multiplayer splitscreen, then obviously you should invest in consoles that have good multiplayer games....like Nintendo. Nintendo has always excelled at having you play with the person sitting next to you. Or Xbox...play each other over LIVE, it's a decent service even if it does cost $50 a year. Then again, a 10 person LAN party can create some awesome memories...
Ok, The only thing I fully understand with a brief look is that males my age (31) would rather play a hardcore game. I can agree with that. Currently I'm playing Crysis. I'd say it's pretty hardcore. After this, it'll either be call of duty 4 or Bioshock. No tetris for me!
Oh, and if I can't play it with a mouse/keyboard at 1600*1200 then it's not worth playing. Sorry Xboxers and PS3 kiddies. No sitting on the living room floor playing with a controller for me. 8 buttons ain't enough. I need all 104. And I can't STAND trying to sniper with a joy nub! Nothing comes close to a mouse... Oh and I saw that 'aim assist' crap once. Please!
I dunno man...all of that sounds rather elitist...elitist and 'hardcore' tend to go hand in hand, you know...notice I called you a "self-described hardcore gamer". I didn't assign you that label, I said you were a "self-described". The description that you gave in both of those quotes of yourself tells me what you think of yourself when it comes to video games...hence, self-described.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the people that control the data control everything. We are quickly becoming a networked species...WMD's, guns, "dirty bombs"...these are no longer viable weapons except in little wars. The true fights are being fought with data, and Google likely has more data stored than any other organization in the entire world, be it private or government. That is how they would control the Internet...by knowing more about it than any other group of people.
While I mostly agree with you, people did know they had a choice. Apple isn't exactly a newcomer in the home computing sector...people have known about them for years. They just haven't changed over for...well, for whatever reason they haven't. It's not like Microsoft put themselves here...they didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and told them that they HAD to by Microsoft products. The market is what made Microsoft a monopoly. Yes, Microsoft abuses their position in the marketplace, but they didn't put themselves there...the software market did.
As far as Linux goes, I will agree, many people didn't know and STILL don't know that it's out there despite it's increased mainstream media coverage...every year though, more and more people are moving from Windows to other platforms... Change takes time, sometimes longer than others.
As far as it being easily exploitable...it really is not that difficult to lock down a Windows machine...On my PC at home that I use for browsing the internet or online gaming, I have ZoneAlarm, AVG, and Spybot. Between these three FREE programs, and just a pinch of discretion in terms of my internet habits, I haven't had a single virus or bit of spyware in over three years...on top of that, excluding system or hardware updates, I haven't had to reboot in nearly 8 months.
See, that's the thing...I'm not really one to gravitate towards conspiracy theories...still, I think that Google started off with some really great ideas, the government caught wind of them, offered them huge amounts of cash that no one could possibly ignore, and they both shook hands in the shadows.
You know, I don't think it's a secret that Microsoft controls what many consider to be a monopoly (I personally don't think they are a monopoly, but then again I don't think Microsoft is the only (or even the fifth) software developer out there...but I digress.
Just because it's the pot calling the kettle black, or being crybabies, or anything else you folks here on teh dot like to toss around in regards to Microsoft...does that make them wrong?
I don't know about you all, but I am WAY more worried about Google than I am about Microsoft. So the company attempts to create a monopoly and have their OS everywhere...big deal. Eventually, the general public will wise up and move to either OSX or Linux, and Microsoft's stranglehold will dissipate.
Are you people seriously worried about Microsoft when Google is quickly becoming the private sector equivalent to the CIA? I mean, come on...they track, store, and record EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. Google is far and away the world's most popular search engine...that, combined with the mountains of data that they store, and combined with the number of various companies that they are buying up, with a dash of the number of web pages that have ad links FROM Google on them...do you see what I am saying?
Microsoft may be running a monopoly on the operating system market, but Google is very slowly (so slowly you won't even notice...) building a monopoly on the control of the Internet and our very lives.
Google is two steps away from becoming a government agency. Watch.
I agree with your last sentence whole-heartedly...but a good debate is fun, especially when stuck at work with nothing to do for a few more hours ;-)
If what you are saying is true, does that mean I could take the cross and say that to me, it's symbolism is important to my religion? What if my religion was based upon all of the things that christianity hated? What if my religion was called "assfucking homosexual thiefism"? You know...What if I had a cross made with two men hobnobbing each other... and to me, this truly, honestly, was a divine symbol that represented my view of an infinite deity that created everything. Do you honestly think christians the world over would just shrug, and say "well, it's what it means to him...no harm no foul."
I agree with you, different symbols mean different things to different people. I know my example is an extremely unlikely one, and certainly a childish one... Still, to say that people don't care how others interpret their symbols is ludicrous. YOU might not personally care, but I assure you the majority of religious folk do. Prove me wrong; walk into a church wearing an inverted cross and see how long you are there before they try to throw you out.
My response to your post is from a response I gave to another person in this thread:
How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion?
My mother's a meatbag, you insensitive clod!
So...what you are saying is, is that "as a whole", christianity accepted the methods of celebration that other cultures used...those other cultures being the same ones that were accused of working in-tandem with the devil, and considered bad enough to be destroyed in mass numbers?
I'm not saying christianity is the only religion that has blood on it's hands...the majority of religions do, in some form or another. What I'm trying to understand though is what sense does it make to adopt the celebrations from a group of people that the CHURCH THEMSELVES decided were agents and tools for the devil?
If I were a christian (I'm not...I wouldn't consider myself anything, insofar as religion is concerned) the very idea that the church accepted and actually ENCOURAGED the celebrations brought forward by converts from a religion that was supposed to be about devil worship and blasphemy of MY god would be enough for me to secede from the church completely.
How does it not piss off christians that many of the traditions used in the celebration for the birth of their saviour came from the very people that their church was denouncing and killing? See...this is why religion is stupid to me. If you aren't willing to accept doublespeak in politics...why are you willing to accept it in religion?
I know this conversation is mostly dead, but hopefully you will notice my response to your post.
I can understand if you don't want to have a violent game like Conan in your house if you have children...but other then that reason, why would that stop you from playing something you enjoy?
I only say this because of where the content originates from...the Conan novels were full of grisly violence, sex all over the place, and just generally "mature" themes (just like the Bible...hey, imagine that!)
All I'm saying is it wouldn't feel very "Conan" if the presentation wasn't on par with the source material...case in point, I remember playing Call of Duty when it was first released, and my dad walked into the room. He watched for a couple of minutes, and then said "Why is there no blood?" My response was "I suppose it's so younger people can play it..." His response: "Fantastic...it's a recruiting tool. Now these younger kids that are able to play this GAME because it has no blood in it will have an inaccurate depiction of how horrible and violent war truely is."
I didn't think much of it then, but he has an excellent point. I'm not saying you should expose your children to mass amounts of violence when they are 5 years old...what I am saying, however, is that you shouldn't try to shield them from it either. They WILL see it one day in one form or another...what better time and place for them to see it than under your supervision where they can ask questions and get answers?
(Note, I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your kids or anything...that is the most rude thing a person can do. I'm simply trying to offer you a different perspective to think about. Happy New Year!)
I think what the OP was trying to say was that the pagan religion of Yule was originally modified by Christians in an attempt to a. convert pagans over to christianity b. "gloss over" the pagan holiday in an attempt to prevent other people from discovering it, becomming curious, and partaking in it and c. recently has been perpetuated in an attempt to gain mass amounts of money from the general public.
This is actually true with most christian holidays. This is not bigotry against christianity, it's the truth. Just like the jews being poor and dirty in The Passion wasn't bigotry, it was the truth...jews were poor and dirty back then. Just like saying black people have big lips isn't racist...it's simply the truth; they do in fact have big lips.
If anything, modern-day christians should be more pissed than modern-day pagans about this...the holiday that is supposed to celebrate the birth of their saviour is simply a retooling of a much older pagan celebration once considered by the church to be inspired by the devil. If as a christian that doesn't piss you off...you need to read this paragraph again.
Yes, that was definitely a highlight as well:-) It actually isn't that awesome on it's own...but compared to what I was using before, it's awesome (then again, I think anything would be...24" tube TV doesn't really have anything to offer 8D )
It's easy to spot...watch an episode from season 4 or season 5, and then right after that watch an episode from season 1 or season 2...you will notice it big time, trust me.
"They say rock 'n' roll is the devil's music. Well, let's say that it is; I've got news for you. Let's say that rock'n'roll is the devil's music and we know it for a fact to be the absolutely, unequivocally true. At least he fucking jams! Ha ha ha ha! Okay? Did you hear that correctly? If it's a choice between eternal hell and good tunes and eternal heaven and new kids on the fuckin' block ... I'm gonna be surfing on the lake of fire, rocking out, high five at Satan every time I pass the motherfucking shore." -Bill Hicks
I stopped liking Family Guy when they made every character the same...each individual character used to be entirely unique with their own personalities and type of humour...Stewie especially. Recently (as in, within the past 2-3 seasons) they have all kind of melted together into one personality spread across multiple people...just doesn't have the same punch that it used to...
That was actually an episode from a few seasons back...many people rip on South Park for just becoming crazy for the sake of crazy, but there is one thing that is abundantly clear...in the 11+ years that show has been on, it is quite obvious that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are no where even CLOSE to running out of original ideas. Outlandish, over the top, nothing like what the show used to be...but still original, creative, and just plain funny stuff.
/offtopic
You should keep watching it...it's an entirely different show than it was in it's first few seasons, but it's still a fantastic show. I dare say it's even better now than it used to be...
Overall, many great memories from this year of gaming...nothing will compare to the summer of 2004 for gaming memories for me (closed beta of WoW, 15 friends, an empty house, a lot of water pipes, and half the summer taken off from work), but I would have to say these were my top 5 from the year (in no particular order):
1. Opening 15 minutes of BioShock. This was done with 5 friends around the couch, all of us huddled close together...home theater setup was turned way up high, my Tannoy PS 110-B sub rattling the floor, a gorgeous image on my HDTV...honestly, one of the most tense 15 minutes of gaming I have ever experienced.
2. First time I played a Wii. This was at a friends house way back in February. There were a total of 7 of us taking turns playing Wii sports...considering how often we host gaming parties or LAN parties, I knew the instant I started watching and playing that I had to get one.
3. Experiencing the story of Mass Effect. In my opinion, the greatest sci-fi universe ever conceived...buy the art book, amazing! I was actually a little frustrated when it ended primarily because I wasn't ready to finish it yet! Cannot wait for the second one...
4. Rainbow Six: Vegas on Live. Spent 16 straight hours (taking breaks every 4-5 hours to get food and goto the bathroom, of course) playing it the weekend I get my HDTV. I likely gained 20 pounds that weekend, but it was definitely a weekend to remember.
5. Playing through the Orange Box...Half-Life 2 is one of my all time favourite games, and I hadn't played it since early 2005. Seeing it on a big HDTV with an awesome surround system, coupled together with playing through Episode 1 and 2 to further the storyline (and yes, of course, playing Portal) was amazing. Ravenholm is absolutely terrifying at night with all the lights out and the system cranked!
So there they are, my top 5 gaming moments of 2007. There were plenty other great ones, to be sure, but these were the most memorable for me. A man chooses, a slave eats cake!
I think you were missing the point that I was responding to in regards to the OP...he said certain games weren't worth playing because they were played with a controller instead of a keyboard and mouse. Not because he couldn't afford to, not because he didn't agree with them morally, he said they were literally worthless because they were console games that used controllers and not PC games that used a keyboard/mouse combo.
If you don't want to buy a system or a game because you can't afford to or because you oppose of it morally, that's fine...I have no problem with that, there is nothing wrong with that. But refusing to play a game ONLY because it isn't a PC game is needlesly limiting yourself...if money isn't a factor, and morality isn't a factor, and the only thing preventing you from playing them is an elitest sense of view that console games are somehow inferior...I'm sorry, from the standpoint of someone who loves videogames, that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of.
Again. If you can't afford it or just simply don't morally agree with the message a game puts out, that's fine...but refusing to play the vast majority of games that are released simply because they are on a console is really only hurting one person: the elitest bastard who refuses to (or maybe just can't?) adapt to a different control scheme.
Just for reference, I'm 23 years old now. I have been playing video games every single day (literally...not a day has gone by that I haven't played for at least ten minutes, even if it's on my cell phone) since my sixth birthday. For a very long time, I have played violent video games...some would say I started playing violent video games at an age when someone that young shouldn't be (in case you were curious, my first violent game (and first game altogether) was NARC on NES.)
I have played countless hours of video games...gibbing friends, blowing up planes, slashing people apart with swords, and just generally being as destructive as possible. Violent video games have had a profound effect on me...they have desensitized me to violence.
Now, many people would say that is a bad thing; personally, I find it to be a good thing. I can give you a perfect example: From the ages of 18 to 22, I was a car mechanic. A buddy of mine lost two fingers in a metal radiator fan when the moron inside the car started it up, thinking we had given him the all clear signal (the all clear signal actually came from three bays down...and yes, the bay number was shouted along with the words "clear". The guy in the car was just a moron.) All of my coworkers around me were unable to help him, because they couldn't stand to look at his hand. While my manager was calling 911, I, totally unaffected by the two missing digits and exposed bone, was able to properly wrap it and position my coworker (due to him going into shock) until the ambulance arrived.
Something similar happened on a four wheeling trip. A guy we were wheeling with was exploring the trail up ahead a little bit (it had rained recently, and he was checking for stability). The guy slipped and fell, breaking his arm on a rock, his bone sticking out of his forearm. Again, unfazed, I was able to help him out and do what was necessary to help get him down off the mountain.
Many people suddenly panic when something violent and bloody happens, and that's how people get more hurt than they already are. Yes, video games have desensitized me to violence, and as a result I have been able to help people that I otherwise would have been powerless to help.
Desensitization is NOT a bad thing. It allows you to see past the violence that is occurring and to address the situation with a clear head, calm head. Desensitization is how one of my childhood friends was able to become a very effective EMT...blood and guts simply don't phase her, and she is able to approach the given situation without paying any attention to the gore that may present itself.
Screw the mod that put this at offtopic. I am aware that Slashdot isn't Erowid.org, but this was a well written Salvia experience.
No, it's because there are very few PC games that actually support split screen. In fact, the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Serious Sam Second Encounter.
You are being rather rude. I'm done talking to you.
But you yourself said if it couldn't be played with a keyboard/mouse combo, it isn't worth playing...that is entirely inaccurate. Many of the greatest games of all time (not just my opinion, I'm refering to topping lists, polls, general consensus and such) were console exclusives....Now, I can understand playing primariliy PC games because you play shooters and RTS, that's fine...that makes sense. But don't just pass off ALL games on consoles because they aren't shoehorned into those two genres or because you use a controller instead of a mouse...as a gamer, you are missing out on a lot of history because of that way of thinking.
Do yourself a favour; open your mind a bit.
As far as your "PC vs Console" definition...I'm not even going to give it further response. You have taken it into the realm of stupidity, which I refuse to be a part of.
All three of the major consoles this generation have independent and split-screen games. Some PC games have split-screen as well, although they are very few and far between.
Regardless, the way that you talk about it makes you sound like an elitist ass. And btw, any TV that can output a 1080P signal is already putting out a higher resolution than 1600X1200....not to mention 1600X1200 isn't all that high for modern PC games...
As far as headshotting with a controller, it just takes some getting used to...if anything, it just means you are more skilled if you are able to. Being able to be just as proficient in an FPS using a mouse as you are using a controller is a great skill to have btw. You never know when a great shooter is going to be a console exclusive...Goldeneye, perhaps?
BTW, both the 360 AND the PS3 can output a 1080p signal. Just thought you would like to know.
Being able to modify PC games, that I will definately agree with you on...Oblivion is the perfect example of that, and Team Fortress 2/Portal will both be fantastic examples of it as well, once the community spends some more time with them.
Still, don't entirely write off consoles....you are really limiting yourself from playing some fantastic games.
I dunno man...all of that sounds rather elitist...elitist and 'hardcore' tend to go hand in hand, you know...notice I called you a "self-described hardcore gamer". I didn't assign you that label, I said you were a "self-described". The description that you gave in both of those quotes of yourself tells me what you think of yourself when it comes to video games...hence, self-described.