I've had mine for nearly a year now, and have been very satisfied. At $50 a year, I think the Live Gold membership has been well worth it. I was impressed at first with being able to download 1+ gig demos reasonably fast. Plus 'free' Live content such as Texas Hold'em and Hexic are a bonus too. Admittedly, I don't have a whole lot of friends so all the chat/com features haven't done much for me.
I have a few complaints about the speed of loading Arcade games and having demos show as 0 on your gamerscore, but all in all, Live has been a good experience. It was just on the 22nd of this month that they added TV and movies to the Live content, and so far, I'm liking that too. Already downloaded South Park's Make Love Not Warcraft and a few other choice tv shows. They cost $2.00 each and do not expire. I know you can watch them while offline, as long as you are signed in with the same user profile that downloaded them. So the liscensing for them is stored locally.
As for the machine itself, it delivers on the graphics and has some great games. The DVD tray on mine has started to stick a bit. An xbox with a shoddy disc drive, who'de imagined?
Personally, I think they did a lot right. They were first to market, got some exclusive games, and have a well organized Xbox Live interface. One thing they could do is push a few more free arcade games to combat Sony.
First of all, we wait for at least a year of patching before trusting a MS product. Second, Vista is a huge resource hog. We see no reason to waste that much RAM, CPU cycles for prettier windows that don't do more. Third, price. The costs to upgrade company wide a effing astronomical. For what, a bug-filled (I'll call it a safe assumption) resource hog?
This is also coming from someone who is generally likes Windows XP. XP has become a pretty stable OS that is familiar and works well. So far Vista has offered nothing that makes us want to even know more about it. Heck, you could figure out how to display the desktop in 5D or shut it down 42 different ways for all I care, I want my RAM back!
I'll buy that, but then your CD case is going to be mostly empty. No one respects you if you only have 4 CDs. Best to spread it out. Although I do appreciate Pink Floyd, I wouldn't be caught dead without Tool's 10,000 days in some form on my person. Dare I say they are the modern Pink Floyd. Or...they are the future Pink Floyd to the modern Pink Floyd that were ahead of their time in the past.
Atheist turned troll? Reading through your comments, I don't see any technical posts, just thinly disguised right wing politics.
I do have a college education in the sciences
Really, which ones? Was this degree over the internets? Certainly not any sciences that are applicable to this debate. Perhaps social, political, or economic?
You haven't produced one bit of 'evidence' that doesn't match this site.
I hate to be a flamer, and couldn't care less what anyone believes about how he universe got here. However, you have made the always typical comments telltale of someone not intersted the least bit in 'the sciences' or any fact, you're interested in framing the argument. First off, you start with the 'Public Schools' chestnut. Only in a geeks wildest dreams would a public school education get that in depth into science. Second, you confused evolution with origin. If you are a student of 'the sciences', you would not make such a mistake unless you intended to do so. Finally, using the term monkeyist religion? Perhaps you would feel more at home at a Rush Limbaugh blog rather than a tech site.
Love and hate the KOTOR games. The storyline really sucks me in. (maybe I'm prone to it, hence the nickname) However, there are a couple major problems that need to be addressed.
BUGS!!!
Do not release another bug filled KOTOR game, please! KOTOR 2 had so much going for it until you hit bugs that completely ruin the game.
The second complaint is that as soon as you become a Jedi with all the cool moves and gear, the game is done. I don't mind the progression, but give the player more time to be a Jedi.
Finally, give the player a chance to branch off from the main story for a bit and gain XP. Let certain enemies respawn and let players go back to other planets before finishing off the game. You're forcing someone through an RPG like it's a shooter.
Well, High-end consoles are really nothing more than the latest and greatest computer parts bundeled and sold cheaper than you could normally buy them. So yes. What makes the console so great when you could get the exact same interface devices and power from the computer? Consoles are loss leaders. How much would it cost you to outfit your computer with the hardware from these consoles? Less than the console, for the first year anyway. Also, consoles don't have near the amount of software/hardware combinations. Games are designed to Just Work with them. No searching for patches, no worrying about your video card or video driver settings, etc.
I used to be a much heavier PC gamer, until It seemed that every year would require a new video card to play the latest and greatest games. Then you'de need more RAM, more Processor power every couple of years. Since at home, I usually stick to surfing, simple apps coding, and hosting personal web pages, I figured all this money spent was quite a waste.
Previous versions of Elder Scrolls were great, but I can't bring myself to go go back to a world full of blockly tree and no real vegetation. The power of next gen has brought these worlds to life more than before, and I think that is an important addition to the experience. Although I think I would have liked Oblivion anyway, it raised the bar of what I consider a quality RPG. Now I know I can expect a good game with excellent graphics.
Gears of War, and shooters in general, also rely on graphical improvements. Gears of War may be an exception because of the cover system that it (IMO) has done better than any other shooter. But for the most part, they are basically a variation of DOOM. The only thing that really distinguishes them are graphics and maybe a unique weapon (gravity gun in Half Life, energy sword in Halo). Next gen relies on that power to produce environments and players interesting and interactive enough that you would want to buy yet another shooter.
Sports games as well. The rules don't change enough to compel a person to buy the new Tiger Woods or MVP Baseball every year, so they have to rely on harnessing graphical power to make the environment and characters more life-like.
Anyway, I think the Wii is proof that graphics and processing power are not a deal breaker, but I do think that graphics and power are important enough that they will continue to drive the direction of what is considered truely next gen. If anything, I think Wii could be popular enough spark a "second tier" of cheap consoles that don't follow the high end power model, but don't think such a console would ever replace PC-like consoles.
I would think that PCs, given how cheap they are now, would be eliminating the high-end console, not something like the Wii. But the variation of hardware software conflicts and the constant demand to upgrade or replace an otherwise functional PC keeps people from really adopting it.
Exactly. We have just a small team of coders doing various projects and take pride in modular development that makes it easy for us to use each others classes when we design a program. It's easy to do while in the safe haven of developers hands. Then it get implemented and all of a sudden X feature needs to be implemented and Y data needs to be stored in Z class (unknown before despite countless design meetings). Now we have a choice, Take the time to modify all these nice classes so they have the added capability and still work together nicely and are adaptable, or throw enough code at them to get your features working and data stored immediately (which happens to be when they want it after it has been released).
You just can't think of everything before hand, and after the fact, you just may not have time to do things properly. Although it may save time in the long run, the short run is usually made far more important by users/bosses.
Personally, I thought they were going to be the next Sega. When the announced the Wii would not be HD capable I figured they were dead in the water. But after pulling what felt like every muscle in my body playing Wii Sports with friends, I have to admit they will be the true winners of this round of console wars. They went with something different and concentrated on gameplay and really pulled it off. Kudos to them.
They made a console that not only appeals to the all-important 18-35 market, but is also going to be a favorite among parents for young kids becasue the games are mostly PG and they even get some exercise playing it.
However, I wouldn't trade my 360 for it. They pulled off an excellent product through innovative concept and gameplay, but I don't think this will dent the demand for the powerful graphics/complexity that true next gen consoles deliver. In its price range, I think the Wii is a healthy addition to have along with a 360 or PS3, but not so much a direct competitor to them among the 18+ crowd.
He is an advisor, he has no real authority in the final descision...Or at least he should not (that isn't the way things always go). Perhaps I should have been a bit more accurate by saying both sides should be fully represented in the debate.
For example, many politicans have had opposite party members as advisors. Which I think is commendable. Even if they choose to never implement that advisors POV, at least they give it consideration when trying to make a descision that is best for the people that elected them.
Well, it would depend on what other proprietary software they use. For example, they may have systems that plug into MS Office proprietary libraries to output documents/reports. In that case, they would have to modify/replace their other software which may make switching a greater short term cost. Not much of an argument IMO, but valid. Unfortunately, many commecially used products use MS Office libraries to create documents and offer no options for creating ODF.
Also, one could reasonably argue that since MS has such a great market share, and they don't support ODF, that switching would make documents less accessible to the public that for the most part, doesn't know anything about Open Office or anything other than MS. Once again, I wouldn't consider proprietary dominance a good reason, but it is valid.
If he can provide a reasobale argument as to why ODF should not be implemented, He should be an advisor. If I were in charge I would want both sides fully represented along with third party experts (which were also appointed). But alas, given the state of US governance, he's likely just there to funnel money to the right people in order to get his way.
The ultimate goal is to have the pilot control an array of fighters in addition to the commercial craft?
Besides all the possible problems of a plane flying that has no human on board to control it should a sensor or system fail, they can't even spring for multiple pilots controlling the RC aircraft? Hmmm... I didn't know that pilots not having enough responsibility and technical difficulty was the problem that needed to be solved.
Although the idea of an RC aircraft is good (at least for a backup, IMO), Their goal here is seriously flawed.
Are my reading skills off, or is Google saying that an Ipod will be able to connect to a server capable of holding all the media in the world? That I'd find believable.
As a result, the Google VP believes, there will be greater convergence between mobile and internet, as consumers expect to be able to access traditional web content and services on the mobile platform.
Google is talking about network storage, Apple is talking local.
Apple's claim is pretty bold saying that an entire years worth of all video produced can be stored locally for the same price (for the device at least).
I'm gonna have to go ahead and...um, yeah...sorta disagree with slashdotters here.
Although most video game movies do suck, Halo has a couple things going for it that give it a good chance of defying the norm. First of all, Halo is a MS flagship product. They aren't going to give creative control over to people who care/know little about the story or game. Second, they are going to give it the financial backing it needs if they are going to make it. Third, Halo has a well developed storyline complete with their own "Halo Bible". I would say that the Resident Evil storyline was pretty well developed too, though.
Anyway, I think it has a chance at being a great movie. I would like to see Master Chief come to life on the screen.
Then again, I may be an idiot because I'd love to see Lucas do it, as long as he has no hand in casting or the script. I'd give him the FX and fight scenes any day.
I must say that an epic battle between armies actual players sound like the game I've been looking for. However, I've never played an MMORPG. I'm a bit apprehensive about investing in one because I do have a lot of other things going on. All I hear about is that PvP in these games suck because people with nothing else to do become too strong. And that's among the other complaints of being a time/money pit.
Can anyone suggest why this game would be a good one to try out? The gameplay sounds quite cool, but I don't know if I'm up for the MMORPG plunge.
A lot of meetings is not automatically a bad thing. Especially when the worth of a product is overly subjective. What works/looks good for one developer may not for another. Normally, you would pick your best options rather than all to ease confusion, but I could understand shipping them all and and letting the user pick what they like. I guess they don't figure on shutdown nazis getting mad that other users can shutdown the machine differently than them.
Seeing the shutdown options, I would suspect two problems. One would be poor management structure. No one willing to stick their neck out and narrow down or standardize features. The second I would guess is uncertainty. Not knowing what users will want. Giving them as many options as possible and hoping they have most people covered. It seems they didn't give much consideration to those that think less options is best.
The problems explained by Lettvin point to poor communication and too much secrecy. When you wish to hide all other sections of code or keep them in the dark about changes from developers of a particular section, you are going to add serious overhead. I don't think the problem is too many developers, its the communication between them. Ideally, having large teams would give you the best ideas from more people, but if you never let them know what the other is thinking/doing, the large number of people can't build off each other and is wasted.
They aren't easy, and they're not impossible. You get one for each act (and another for full game completion) on each difficulty. On casual difficulty, they are only worth 10 points. More on the harder difficulties. There is one for 100 Live kills for each weapon (that would take some work).
Most notably, there is one called "A Series Of Tubes" for hosting enough games, and Ted Stevens is credited for the inspiration in the ending credits. Also Ted Nugent ("The Nuge" Torque Bow 100 kills).
Some of this criticism is overblown.
As far as the AI goes, it's about right. The point isn't to sit back and let the computer beat itself for you. The AI characters are like refs. They outcome of the game should not depend on them. Could use a little more help on insane difficulty, but thats what co-op and friends are for.
This is the best shooter I've ever played. So much so that I was actually dissapointed when I went back to Halo, GRAW, and Battlefield after a week or so of GOW. I go back to other games and I find myself looking for cover and actually trying to preserve my digital life in a deathmatch. There is a waist high obstacle that I stand behind only to find myself being pelted in the face becase I can't use cover.
The seamless use of cover in Gears of War has ruined other shooters for me. They nailed it.
As far as the characters/story are concerned, they are a bit underdeveloped. They give you enough to know these guys are bad ass. Too much more story and they'll want to make a crappy movie out of it anyway.
The game is a bit short, but intense. I saw someone mentioned 6 hours... not at any average gamer skill level, and not without a strategy guide handy, IMO. Co-op on Hardcore took about 11 hours. Act 4 accounted for most of that.
I'd say 9.5/10
Points off for not allowing guests on Live without two accounts on one machine, and restricted Live play. Although the modes are good, only 8 players and they could have thrown in the classic death match as an unranked option.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had mine for nearly a year now, and have been very satisfied. At $50 a year, I think the Live Gold membership has been well worth it. I was impressed at first with being able to download 1+ gig demos reasonably fast. Plus 'free' Live content such as Texas Hold'em and Hexic are a bonus too. Admittedly, I don't have a whole lot of friends so all the chat/com features haven't done much for me.
I have a few complaints about the speed of loading Arcade games and having demos show as 0 on your gamerscore, but all in all, Live has been a good experience. It was just on the 22nd of this month that they added TV and movies to the Live content, and so far, I'm liking that too. Already downloaded South Park's Make Love Not Warcraft and a few other choice tv shows. They cost $2.00 each and do not expire. I know you can watch them while offline, as long as you are signed in with the same user profile that downloaded them. So the liscensing for them is stored locally.
As for the machine itself, it delivers on the graphics and has some great games. The DVD tray on mine has started to stick a bit. An xbox with a shoddy disc drive, who'de imagined?
Personally, I think they did a lot right. They were first to market, got some exclusive games, and have a well organized Xbox Live interface. One thing they could do is push a few more free arcade games to combat Sony.
know our company will not be upgrading soon.
First of all, we wait for at least a year of patching before trusting a MS product. Second, Vista is a huge resource hog. We see no reason to waste that much RAM, CPU cycles for prettier windows that don't do more. Third, price. The costs to upgrade company wide a effing astronomical. For what, a bug-filled (I'll call it a safe assumption) resource hog?
This is also coming from someone who is generally likes Windows XP. XP has become a pretty stable OS that is familiar and works well. So far Vista has offered nothing that makes us want to even know more about it. Heck, you could figure out how to display the desktop in 5D or shut it down 42 different ways for all I care, I want my RAM back!
I'll buy that, but then your CD case is going to be mostly empty. No one respects you if you only have 4 CDs. Best to spread it out. Although I do appreciate Pink Floyd, I wouldn't be caught dead without Tool's 10,000 days in some form on my person. Dare I say they are the modern Pink Floyd. Or...they are the future Pink Floyd to the modern Pink Floyd that were ahead of their time in the past.
Yes, I was once an atheist
Atheist turned troll? Reading through your comments, I don't see any technical posts, just thinly disguised right wing politics.
I do have a college education in the sciences
Really, which ones? Was this degree over the internets? Certainly not any sciences that are applicable to this debate. Perhaps social, political, or economic?
You haven't produced one bit of 'evidence' that doesn't match this site.
I hate to be a flamer, and couldn't care less what anyone believes about how he universe got here. However, you have made the always typical comments telltale of someone not intersted the least bit in 'the sciences' or any fact, you're interested in framing the argument. First off, you start with the 'Public Schools' chestnut. Only in a geeks wildest dreams would a public school education get that in depth into science. Second, you confused evolution with origin. If you are a student of 'the sciences', you would not make such a mistake unless you intended to do so. Finally, using the term monkeyist religion? Perhaps you would feel more at home at a Rush Limbaugh blog rather than a tech site.
Knoppix
Never know when you need to pull files from a disk with a FUBAR boot sector
AV Disc
Need your disk with AVAST, Ad-Aware, and other virus removal tools
Windows XP
Sometimes a re-install is just easier
Fedora
Just in case you have an open-minded subject prone to viruses, you can get them using Linux. (Of course, this takes multiple disc spaces.)
MS Office
To fix those pesky Office corruptions
Open Office
Once again, for those open-minded folks who wouldn't really know the difference anyway.
Misc software
Adobe, Quicktime, Firefox, Opera, J2RE, etc. Those pretty much handle any random computer problems most people have.
No doubt Will will be on to start some SPORE buzz. A game based on evolution should give Colbert some killer material.
Love and hate the KOTOR games. The storyline really sucks me in. (maybe I'm prone to it, hence the nickname) However, there are a couple major problems that need to be addressed.
BUGS!!!
Do not release another bug filled KOTOR game, please! KOTOR 2 had so much going for it until you hit bugs that completely ruin the game.
The second complaint is that as soon as you become a Jedi with all the cool moves and gear, the game is done. I don't mind the progression, but give the player more time to be a Jedi.
Finally, give the player a chance to branch off from the main story for a bit and gain XP. Let certain enemies respawn and let players go back to other planets before finishing off the game. You're forcing someone through an RPG like it's a shooter.
Well, High-end consoles are really nothing more than the latest and greatest computer parts bundeled and sold cheaper than you could normally buy them. So yes. What makes the console so great when you could get the exact same interface devices and power from the computer? Consoles are loss leaders. How much would it cost you to outfit your computer with the hardware from these consoles? Less than the console, for the first year anyway. Also, consoles don't have near the amount of software/hardware combinations. Games are designed to Just Work with them. No searching for patches, no worrying about your video card or video driver settings, etc.
I used to be a much heavier PC gamer, until It seemed that every year would require a new video card to play the latest and greatest games. Then you'de need more RAM, more Processor power every couple of years. Since at home, I usually stick to surfing, simple apps coding, and hosting personal web pages, I figured all this money spent was quite a waste.
Take, for instance, Oblivion:
Previous versions of Elder Scrolls were great, but I can't bring myself to go go back to a world full of blockly tree and no real vegetation. The power of next gen has brought these worlds to life more than before, and I think that is an important addition to the experience. Although I think I would have liked Oblivion anyway, it raised the bar of what I consider a quality RPG. Now I know I can expect a good game with excellent graphics.
Gears of War, and shooters in general, also rely on graphical improvements. Gears of War may be an exception because of the cover system that it (IMO) has done better than any other shooter. But for the most part, they are basically a variation of DOOM. The only thing that really distinguishes them are graphics and maybe a unique weapon (gravity gun in Half Life, energy sword in Halo). Next gen relies on that power to produce environments and players interesting and interactive enough that you would want to buy yet another shooter.
Sports games as well. The rules don't change enough to compel a person to buy the new Tiger Woods or MVP Baseball every year, so they have to rely on harnessing graphical power to make the environment and characters more life-like.
Anyway, I think the Wii is proof that graphics and processing power are not a deal breaker, but I do think that graphics and power are important enough that they will continue to drive the direction of what is considered truely next gen. If anything, I think Wii could be popular enough spark a "second tier" of cheap consoles that don't follow the high end power model, but don't think such a console would ever replace PC-like consoles.
I would think that PCs, given how cheap they are now, would be eliminating the high-end console, not something like the Wii. But the variation of hardware software conflicts and the constant demand to upgrade or replace an otherwise functional PC keeps people from really adopting it.
Exactly. We have just a small team of coders doing various projects and take pride in modular development that makes it easy for us to use each others classes when we design a program. It's easy to do while in the safe haven of developers hands. Then it get implemented and all of a sudden X feature needs to be implemented and Y data needs to be stored in Z class (unknown before despite countless design meetings). Now we have a choice, Take the time to modify all these nice classes so they have the added capability and still work together nicely and are adaptable, or throw enough code at them to get your features working and data stored immediately (which happens to be when they want it after it has been released).
You just can't think of everything before hand, and after the fact, you just may not have time to do things properly. Although it may save time in the long run, the short run is usually made far more important by users/bosses.
I have a PC, why do I need another one that doesn't have the functionality and expandability of my existing PC?
So you know designers are going to tailor the game to work on your video card for at least a few years.
Personally, I thought they were going to be the next Sega. When the announced the Wii would not be HD capable I figured they were dead in the water. But after pulling what felt like every muscle in my body playing Wii Sports with friends, I have to admit they will be the true winners of this round of console wars. They went with something different and concentrated on gameplay and really pulled it off. Kudos to them.
They made a console that not only appeals to the all-important 18-35 market, but is also going to be a favorite among parents for young kids becasue the games are mostly PG and they even get some exercise playing it.
However, I wouldn't trade my 360 for it. They pulled off an excellent product through innovative concept and gameplay, but I don't think this will dent the demand for the powerful graphics/complexity that true next gen consoles deliver. In its price range, I think the Wii is a healthy addition to have along with a 360 or PS3, but not so much a direct competitor to them among the 18+ crowd.
He is an advisor, he has no real authority in the final descision...Or at least he should not (that isn't the way things always go). Perhaps I should have been a bit more accurate by saying both sides should be fully represented in the debate.
For example, many politicans have had opposite party members as advisors. Which I think is commendable. Even if they choose to never implement that advisors POV, at least they give it consideration when trying to make a descision that is best for the people that elected them.
Well, it would depend on what other proprietary software they use. For example, they may have systems that plug into MS Office proprietary libraries to output documents/reports. In that case, they would have to modify/replace their other software which may make switching a greater short term cost. Not much of an argument IMO, but valid. Unfortunately, many commecially used products use MS Office libraries to create documents and offer no options for creating ODF. Also, one could reasonably argue that since MS has such a great market share, and they don't support ODF, that switching would make documents less accessible to the public that for the most part, doesn't know anything about Open Office or anything other than MS. Once again, I wouldn't consider proprietary dominance a good reason, but it is valid.
If he can provide a reasobale argument as to why ODF should not be implemented, He should be an advisor. If I were in charge I would want both sides fully represented along with third party experts (which were also appointed). But alas, given the state of US governance, he's likely just there to funnel money to the right people in order to get his way.
The ultimate goal is to have the pilot control an array of fighters in addition to the commercial craft?
Besides all the possible problems of a plane flying that has no human on board to control it should a sensor or system fail, they can't even spring for multiple pilots controlling the RC aircraft? Hmmm... I didn't know that pilots not having enough responsibility and technical difficulty was the problem that needed to be solved.
Although the idea of an RC aircraft is good (at least for a backup, IMO), Their goal here is seriously flawed.
Figured they were a total flop. I have fun playing bumper hockey, but have never found a game on Live.
Are my reading skills off, or is Google saying that an Ipod will be able to connect to a server capable of holding all the media in the world? That I'd find believable.
As a result, the Google VP believes, there will be greater convergence between mobile and internet, as consumers expect to be able to access traditional web content and services on the mobile platform.
Google is talking about network storage, Apple is talking local.
Apple's claim is pretty bold saying that an entire years worth of all video produced can be stored locally for the same price (for the device at least).
I'm gonna have to go ahead and...um, yeah...sorta disagree with slashdotters here.
Although most video game movies do suck, Halo has a couple things going for it that give it a good chance of defying the norm. First of all, Halo is a MS flagship product. They aren't going to give creative control over to people who care/know little about the story or game. Second, they are going to give it the financial backing it needs if they are going to make it. Third, Halo has a well developed storyline complete with their own "Halo Bible". I would say that the Resident Evil storyline was pretty well developed too, though.
Anyway, I think it has a chance at being a great movie. I would like to see Master Chief come to life on the screen.
Then again, I may be an idiot because I'd love to see Lucas do it, as long as he has no hand in casting or the script. I'd give him the FX and fight scenes any day.
I must say that an epic battle between armies actual players sound like the game I've been looking for. However, I've never played an MMORPG. I'm a bit apprehensive about investing in one because I do have a lot of other things going on. All I hear about is that PvP in these games suck because people with nothing else to do become too strong. And that's among the other complaints of being a time/money pit.
Can anyone suggest why this game would be a good one to try out? The gameplay sounds quite cool, but I don't know if I'm up for the MMORPG plunge.
A lot of meetings is not automatically a bad thing. Especially when the worth of a product is overly subjective. What works/looks good for one developer may not for another. Normally, you would pick your best options rather than all to ease confusion, but I could understand shipping them all and and letting the user pick what they like. I guess they don't figure on shutdown nazis getting mad that other users can shutdown the machine differently than them. Seeing the shutdown options, I would suspect two problems. One would be poor management structure. No one willing to stick their neck out and narrow down or standardize features. The second I would guess is uncertainty. Not knowing what users will want. Giving them as many options as possible and hoping they have most people covered. It seems they didn't give much consideration to those that think less options is best. The problems explained by Lettvin point to poor communication and too much secrecy. When you wish to hide all other sections of code or keep them in the dark about changes from developers of a particular section, you are going to add serious overhead. I don't think the problem is too many developers, its the communication between them. Ideally, having large teams would give you the best ideas from more people, but if you never let them know what the other is thinking/doing, the large number of people can't build off each other and is wasted.
They aren't easy, and they're not impossible. You get one for each act (and another for full game completion) on each difficulty. On casual difficulty, they are only worth 10 points. More on the harder difficulties. There is one for 100 Live kills for each weapon (that would take some work).
Most notably, there is one called "A Series Of Tubes" for hosting enough games, and Ted Stevens is credited for the inspiration in the ending credits. Also Ted Nugent ("The Nuge" Torque Bow 100 kills).
Anyway, here is the actual list.
Sorry,
My first post (noob), didn't realize paragraph breaks weren't auto formatted.
Some of this criticism is overblown. As far as the AI goes, it's about right. The point isn't to sit back and let the computer beat itself for you. The AI characters are like refs. They outcome of the game should not depend on them. Could use a little more help on insane difficulty, but thats what co-op and friends are for. This is the best shooter I've ever played. So much so that I was actually dissapointed when I went back to Halo, GRAW, and Battlefield after a week or so of GOW. I go back to other games and I find myself looking for cover and actually trying to preserve my digital life in a deathmatch. There is a waist high obstacle that I stand behind only to find myself being pelted in the face becase I can't use cover. The seamless use of cover in Gears of War has ruined other shooters for me. They nailed it. As far as the characters/story are concerned, they are a bit underdeveloped. They give you enough to know these guys are bad ass. Too much more story and they'll want to make a crappy movie out of it anyway. The game is a bit short, but intense. I saw someone mentioned 6 hours... not at any average gamer skill level, and not without a strategy guide handy, IMO. Co-op on Hardcore took about 11 hours. Act 4 accounted for most of that. I'd say 9.5/10 Points off for not allowing guests on Live without two accounts on one machine, and restricted Live play. Although the modes are good, only 8 players and they could have thrown in the classic death match as an unranked option.