I worked at Target when it came out, we sold it at either $90 or $50-60.
Okay, so let's assume the best possible scenario, O guitar hero savior. Let's say every single person who purchased guitar hero III only spent $50. That puts them at 20 million copies sold.
Still no record broken, so even if EVERY BUYER OF GUITAR HERO III spent the bare minimum $50 for a new copy of the game, they STILL didn't make a ground breaking amount of sales.
Of course, if every game cost $90-150 depending on what bundle you get, or $50-60 if you just buy the game and don't want to use a guitar, I'm sure this wouldn't be as impressive.
I find it funny that they didn't say how MANY were actually sold; by stating a price and not an amount, it seems like they only reached a record in how expensive it was, not in record breaking sales (the proof of that being that Wii Sports beat them out for that).
So no, I'm not impressed. When it breaks sales records, I'll be impressed. Or, I would be impressed if they made a ridiculous profit per sale and managed to get away with hiking up the price of the product like mad. Not so impressed with 'look how much our expensive product made!'
Being generous, I decided to pretend that every guitar hero III sold was $87.5, and decided to see how many sales that would be. That equates to, roughly, 11,428,571 sales.
Pac-Man got 7 million sales.
Super Mario Bros. sold 40 million, roughly.
Super Mario 64? 11 million.
Wii Sports sold 30 million copies, roughly.
I could go on, as several more top that sales amount. In short, nothing groundbreaking about this. I'm sure if Super Mario Bros. cost $100 a pop, it would be permanently the biggest moneymaker in gaming history.
Something along the lines of 'That person just stole from the local fruit cart!' giving the player an option to care and 'shout' something along the lines of 'stop thief!', or not care at all and ignore it. If enough people 'shout' about the negative action, NPC guards kick them out of town. So, if someone was kill stealing, or trying to destroy an entire crop, if enough people were bothered by it, that person would no longer be allowed on the premise. If they wanted to come back, they would have to do good deeds or something to be allowed back in, or work to undo whatever problem they had caused.
You forgot the sequel to FF X; FF X-2. FF X-2 was heralded as a truly great game; I have been hard pressed to find someone who hated the game that wasn't a swear mongering moron...buuut....
Final Fantasy X-2 was paaainful. If you haven't played it or seen it yet....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyqX1SNuwzc. That pretty well covers it.
Man, I should set up a little camp in my front yard.
The closest man made light you can see is our neighbor's lights inside their house. Otherwise, on a clear night, you can see every star available to us.
Hopefully we don't have 6 feet of snow on this day, of course.
I've had my records get 'misplaced' several times. Having moved from Maryland to Vermont, it was downright depressing to discover that the office down in Maryland wasn't that willing to give me up. At first, they said they lost my records. Then, they claimed I had to physically go to the office, get the records, and then go to the new doctor. Finally, on the third call, they faxed the records over.
If it was electronic, the only excuse they could bring up if they didn't feel like doing work is that the server was down.
I like modernizing things...it's creepy that the industry which keeps us from dying from small pox still remains only partially digital.
And...which XII did you play? Did you miss Vaan, Penelo, and Ashe being from that game? Or did you mean XI? Roman numerals means 2 'I' after X = not an odd number.
X-2 had a whole new problem: sacred summoner transformed into Britney Spears. In the opening sequence, they transformed the blitzball arena to a pop idol singing stadium, where we see a fake Yuna touching herself. Of course, we find out that Yuna does this all the time now with pop singing. If you want to even aaact as though that kind of game is deep, you are silly xD She took on the role of annoying very quickly. Unless, of course, you find teeny boppers to be very good musicians, in which case this abomination was a wonderful game.
I played X, X-2, and XII. Those would be the most recent ones (not including the online one, which I wouldn't include on this list as it is the only PC one). Ten involved whiny Tidus. Ten the sequel involved Britney Spears breaking Spira (I quit once she made it stop storming on the thunder plains by SINGING). 12 involved child Vaan who grew more childish as the plot developed.
The older ones do not follow this model perfectly, but several do.
I've only played 3 of the Final Fantasy games, but here's what I gather character wise:
One character will be excessively whiny and obnoxious (like Tidus whining about getting sucked into a kickass adventure with people like Auron and Wakka, AND getting a girlfriend out of it; or Vaan going from somewhat bearable to not knowing why he's even there and being an obnoxious brat). This one will possibly be blonde, and most likely be the 'main' character.
One character will be hilarious, like Wakka.
One or more inherently cool guys, who do awesome things in cutscenes.
A slew of women that tend to annoy (Yuna wants to die reallyreally bad, Ashe wants power, Penelo is a sidekick to the sidekick).
Main character should have little to nothing to do with the other people. Either fell outta the sky, or is not a leader/soldier but gets dragged in anyway. I know that earlier Final Fantasy (AKA before 10) games don't follow this, but since they've released a few games following this pattern, I'm thinking that'll be this.
Even so, I'm sure it'll be a cinematic masterpiece. The story is always awesome, and the graphics are always spectacular. The battles are fun, if not repetitive, and the game will probably have a toooon of little goodies to go get.
But the point that I am drawing at, is that ancient matters (don't get me wrong, I am not justifying ancient pilgrims stealing land) do not mean that we should kick people off the land they now inhabit.
Furthermore, if we are giving Israel back to its' original people, we better damn well do that for the rest of the peoples of this world. Granted, we don't have enough land to be giving it back to who it belongs to, but why give some people more rights than others?
Until we can make new land so these people we displace to give back old chunks of land to people who barely have a bloodline to trace to said old land, we ought not be giving it back to people.
And, my problem is that when they take land, it is called justified and right (in some cases, it's stated that they flat out -didn't- take any land). I get that the Palestinians hit first, but...well, if someone plopped down in your backyard because the mayor told them they legally owned it, would you not be a little pissed, especially when the mayor didn't care about what you said? And when you retaliate against this land being taken, the result is that more land is taken, and no one takes heed to your cries. You're on your own. Should you be friendly with this person who is on your land?
But hey, who cares that the first strike was when a bunch of countries decided to divvy up land they have no rights to. Palestine hit the land they took first, therefore, Palestine is villainous, and Israel should not be stopped.
Why does it have a right to exist? I understand perfectly well that the good ol' Bible tells us Israel ought exist, but it didn't exist for a while because everyone sacked the place and took it as their own. We didn't bring back Rome Israel or Persia Israel; we brought back the first Israel, for the 'league of nations' opted to do it. After the first World War. Now, I'm not that good with math...but from the end of the reign of a Judaism country to World War 1....gonna guess other people lived there.
To give you a faaaaint idea of what I'm hinting at. Imagine if the US wasn't in the UN, and the UN decided that Native Americans needed their land back. So, they gave them the entire east coast of the US, to be their land. They were given basically whatever they wanted, and they began to push the US citizens gradually to the west, claiming various areas that are more desirable than others (IE, they take Yellowstone national park, leave us Death valley). They are far richer than the US citizens, and have far more support (although Canada and Mexico support the US citizens, lets just say the UN has marked them as third world terrorists). So, let's say that the US citizens scrap together some money, and a small group that want to win back their land, bomb the native Americans. The retaliation? The natives start bombing the civilians that didn't have a thing to do with it. They keep bombing, despite the UN telling them to stop.
Seems like a stretch.
Of course, I don't see why Israel was reinstated. People lived there after the Israelites got wiped out, and then the rest of the world told the Palestinians (arguably not the same exact people who did this), were told to shove over.
I'll probably get modded troll though...it's very mean and uncool to be pro-Palestine civilians. Nope, if you think Israel is wrong, you are a pro-terrorist.
True, that's why the potential for a fun game is almost always non-reachable.
I recall playing a game called Goonzu, and people would stand on event NPCs so that no one else could do the event. Sure, they couldn't do the event because they were preventing others from doing it, but they simply didn't care.
There would probably be ways to stop them, like if they decided to play as 'villains' (read: douches), it would be possible to kill them, treating them as bad guys. So, while everyone plants something and has to wait a few days for the foliage to come back, or their pets get set free to become monsters again or some such, you can go 'kill' the bad guy that did this in the first place. By being killed, they would have to make a new character. So, they would have to start over as a little nublet, level up, skill up, whatever, and then they could go be obnoxious again. If they really have that much energy to go and hinder people's growth for a few days, it would at least give everyone a fun event of 'chase down the jerk and get revenge'.
A really cool MMO would be one where every player affected it (to keep it small, only a few hundred people could be on at a time per world). If you chopped down a tree for timber, for example, it wouldn't respawn in 5 seconds; you would have to grow a new one or else it wouldn't come back, so people couldn't just hack down the entire forest and expect no repercussion. If you hunted a certain monster too much, it would go extinct, so you would have to be careful not to overkill anything (alternatively if you didn't keep their population low, they would overpopulate and ransack the village, and get stronger).
On the other hand, this would take more coding power than just a handful of developers throwing code out there so the confused players can run into bugs and exploits.
Plus it would be too expensive for an MMO budget. And if it was too hard, who would wanna do it anyway? It's much easier to just throw out the basic 'click this once, wait until it dies from repetitive whacking, click the next one' script where you kill to get everything, then to make it more complex.
I guess that the idea of getting to the next part is no longer a reward, either.
The point of dying was to add some form of realism: it taught you that you needed to not suck at this game, you needed to come up with strategies or else you will lose progress (sometimes the progress was based on when you last saved, and not just a checkpoint). If you never lose progress, you really have no incentive to play with any style except run in there mashing buttons like a maniac until everything dies.
It seems like a grand waste of time; why even bother playing? Just go on youtube and watch the cutscenes, if any, and there you go. You just put as much effort into the game as they did.
I disagree. I haven't been able to find a way to enjoy ANY holiday with my family, because all they do is sit around and talk about what happened 30 years ago. Playing Wii Fit gives them something to laugh at: each other. It's fun, it gets them all working together. No 50 year old wants to watch you beat Gears of War, trust me. They might be fascinated by the graphics for 20-30 minutes, but they won't watch for long, and they can't grasp it as quickly if you let them try.
And I'm sorry, but the Wii's 'inferior' game library sure beats having nothing but 'M for mature' war games that have 3 differing features; yah, the changes in storyline are drastic, but the gameplay is nearly identical. Arguably, being able to choose from Wii Sports, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, or Zelda makes for a wider variety.
But, even more than that, it has backwards compatibility. PS3 opted to phase it out. So you get all of the gamecube games, plus one more: N64, NES, SNES, SEGA, and a slew of older systems. Yes, you have to pay for them, but it certainly beats playing it in ROM format on the computer-or dusting off the old system itself.
So yes, tell me again, why does the Wii library suck? Oh yeah, not enough war games. We need more of those. Less creative, new, differing games. Those blow. We need Halo 4, we need Guitar Hero 37, we need Fallout 9.
It's sad, how desperate the Sony and Xbox360 fanboys are to prove that the Wii is falling behind.
Nevermind that the Wii has some online gameplay (keep in mind that most of the online gameplay games available to PS3 and Xbox360 are war/sports games), that it has had free internet browsing almost from the beginning, with a good enough zoom to get almost full screen video on youtube with great streaming; it's not -HD-, so it clearly sucks.
I laugh at this. I really do. I didn't buy a game system to -cough- GO ON THE INTERNET AND WATCH VIDEOS. I bought a game system to -gasp- PLAY GAMES. If I had wanted to play Halo 3 online, I would have bought an Xbox360 and gone online; but I don't. I want to play Zelda; I want to play Metroid Prime.
Call me old school, but goddammit people, why is the Wii the equivalent to Windows Vista? Oooo scary, it doesn't have HD video. Wanna know something else? You don't pay extra to go online.
I think that video gamers aren't video gamers anymore. They're buying game systems to browse the internet. They're buying game systems to watch movies. They're buying game systems to listen to music. It seems as though gamers don't want video games; they want a tiny bit of Halo 3 to go with their movies.
And btw, I noticed a comment stating that the video quality is so poor on their 50" plasma that they shut it off. I have a 42" plasma...so does that added 8" really just -destroy- the quality? Video quality is great-unless you are talking about youtube videos, in which case that is youtube.
If you want great video quality, buy a PS3. If you want great online gameplay, buy an Xbox360 and pay the subscription costs. If you want to play new games, involving more interacting than pressing 3 buttons for 5 hours as your ass gets bigger, buy a Wii. Simple as that.
When I'm playing Wii Fit, I'm not going "Ooooo these damn graphics are so terrible, how angry they make me" while I am trying to beat my hula hoop score.
It's like saying "Well this car goes 280 mph top speed, while this one only reaches 50 mph top speed; are people more interested in only going 50 mph?".
I love me some Wii Boxing, but that doesn't mean I won't wrestle in with Final Fantasy or Doom.
And what the hell? Wii doesn't immerse you? Metroid Prime, anyone? Legend of Zelda? They're just as immersive as the normal games, plus you have to interact to make them do things, most notably in the Zelda game, where you have to move the remote to slash. Arguing that pushing three buttons for 10 hours immerses one more than moving your entire body just because the cutscenes are higher detail is borderline retarded.
People that don't use these gaming PCs always make a fuss whenever they think gaming PCs aren't selling as well. (given that maybe 1 gets sold a week, they just have to stare at the average sales to panic)
The average gamer has a few hours to spend on gaming every day; and considering that all games can be played on bare bones computers (with a few exceptions), there is no incentive for the average gamer to drop a few thousand more on a computer that gets little mileage.
A hardcore gamer that spends 10+ hours a day on a specific game would love a gaming PC, however, as they would go faster.
However, internet connection plays in more than base computer settings for online games. If your connection sucks, you can't do much about it. A better investment for these hardcore mmo players would be to purchase the high speed, $60 a month internet connection.
-runs away as computer-folk chase after me with spears-
The younger generation already has a good grasp on computer usage; having freshly graduated from high school, I can say that the schools already push computer and business futures for all of their students. They were downsizing the music and art programs in our school.
What we really need is a law protecting art and music. Computer knowledge is great, but they're pushing uniformity in the student base, and mocking creativity. Most of the kids I knew could stare at a computer screen for 10 hours without blinking but couldn't be assed to read a book for 20 minutes without bitching.
...Riots in the streets, rape, murder, and general thievery skyrocket as free porn, violent movies, and free games are taken from the masses.
In all honesty, I think censoring the internet is sort of like censoring a library...
Libraries involve borrowing books, not buying them, and sometimes even borrowing DVDs and music, for any extent of time (you do pay late fees, but if you never return it and never go back, not much they can do). We should, therefore, shut down libraries, as these people using them are not paying for the original book, nor are they buying their own copy of the DVD or CD they borrowed. Video rental stores should also be shut down, and game rental stores should be burned.
They're all morons. BitTorrent: 1 person buys the item, then rips it and puts it online. Thousands of people obtain it without paying. Video Store: 1 copy of the item is purchased, and thousands of people rent it, obviously not paying for their own copy. But you don't see them shutting down video stores for lost profits.
As for child porn...I always thought it was funny how they handled that. Watch child porn online = punishment/removal of said child porn. Get drawings of child porn = punishment/removal of said child porn. But...isn't it much less harmful to have them watch cartoony vids, or vids that already exist, then say 'well, you have no harmless way of slaking your disgusting lust, take that!'. I wouldn't be surprised if their attempt at preventing the spread of child porn resulted in an increase in child molestation, kidnap, and possibly even an increase of child porn vids that are 'homemade'. It's disgusting and vile, yes, but for Chrissakes, if you can't stop it until it already happened, do these people really sleep better knowing they stopped videos from being watched, but can do -nothing- to stop child rape? Let them watch the vids = they don't have to go grab a kid themselves.
Similarly, if you take out the option to share a game/music/video, do you really think those people will say "Well, better go buy a copy at $60". No; they'll boycott you. Or, they'll steal a copy for realz. Or, they'll borrow somebody's copy and rip their own copy.
These idiots in their little government buildings need to leave the internet alone; they clearly don't know what they are doing.
People will boycott it, but many more will not. It's so easy to click a song, then find 30 more songs you like on iTunes.
Of course, I find myself only spending money on bands that I have been loyal to for quite some time (IE, System of a Down), and using SkreemR to seek out other stuff. The iTunes DRM is very easy to bypass, so I have no problem with removing it. Granted, it'd be far more enjoyable to not have to waste time breaking DRMs, but for the most part Apple's got no reason to stop using it if people won't stop using their services.
The only annoying thing is that I purchased things from iTunes on two separate computers, and getting them both on one computer is a giant complicated 'go-through-this-hoop-to-leap-over-the-pitfall' puzzle.
Boycott's don't work anymore, because there is a huge gap in American internet users: some get this stuff, others got no clue what it is. The ones that don't get what DRM is flat out don't care, and they outnumber the ones that do care, so any boycott done will do no good. So long as the 'ignorant masses' exist, with endless news channels telling them 'DRM good, no-DRM bad', they will not boycott.
'We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide,'
So....you're angry that people are watching your stuff for free? Considering the, for the sake of argument, millions that these artists make as is from commercials, CDs, individual songs, music vids on MTV and VH1, concerts, and memorabilia sales, do they -seriously- need that extra revenue?
It ain't like they only make $30k a year, like the typical joe-schmoe. No, let's make joe-schmoe pay more so that these artists can make another million.
Ahahahaha -coughs- sorry, that was my BS detector going off.
It's incredibly easy for people of faith to defend their religion. After all, they went to that church and wasted the equivalent of years of their life within it every Sunday. Somebody telling them otherwise would be ridiculous!
Religion carries its' weight in the same way a parasite does: it may not harm the host right away, hell, it might even help the host; but it will kill the host if the host no longer benefits it. Right now, it sees gays as a problem in society, so instead of helping us, it is fighting to keep their rights down (all while saying they strongly support gay rights and love gays, so that they do not lose any of their loyal members).
The reason why religion starts things, is because people give them millions of dollars. Furthermore, whatever they start, ends up supporting them more than anyone else. If you want this shiny new thing, you better be good at pretending to be religious, or else you can't have it.
They never said 'everybody who is religious = stoopid'.
Although tbh with you, monotheistic religions breed hatred, because the only way that religion survives...is by recruiting the unwashed masses; the idiots that can't work a toaster, or thank Jesus for saving their dog from a horrible fire that also killed every human in the building. This large group of people speak the loudest: they say "this is what our religion accepts as good!". You can deny it up and down, but right now the huge religious squabble in the US over gay marriage is clearly not a thought-powered battle.
Imagine if someone went Robin Hood style and robbed the Scientology bank, then gave it all to charities. We could probably save a few hundred, if not thousands of lives with the money being dumped into that farce.
It amuses me that their only means to recruit people, is to force them to join by making it mandatory to learn about it.
Of course, their other method is sinister, in which they take desperate and depressed people, and bring them in with promises to heal their pain (sort of the same as Jesus 'love bombs', except without thousands of years of support and indoctrination).
It's nice and all that we have freedom of speech and religion, but come on. There should be at least an attempt to stop this. Make laws that forbid people from donating more than a certain amount to a church every year (IE, they can only receive enough to keep their buildings maintained every year). It just sickens me how this bullshit can thrive around stupidity like this.
Slashdot Mirror
And the $150 one was some exclusive bundle we sold that had 2 guitars and some other stuff; forgot to mention that.
Okay, so let's assume the best possible scenario, O guitar hero savior. Let's say every single person who purchased guitar hero III only spent $50. That puts them at 20 million copies sold.
Still no record broken, so even if EVERY BUYER OF GUITAR HERO III spent the bare minimum $50 for a new copy of the game, they STILL didn't make a ground breaking amount of sales.
I find it funny that they didn't say how MANY were actually sold; by stating a price and not an amount, it seems like they only reached a record in how expensive it was, not in record breaking sales (the proof of that being that Wii Sports beat them out for that).
So no, I'm not impressed. When it breaks sales records, I'll be impressed. Or, I would be impressed if they made a ridiculous profit per sale and managed to get away with hiking up the price of the product like mad. Not so impressed with 'look how much our expensive product made!'
Being generous, I decided to pretend that every guitar hero III sold was $87.5, and decided to see how many sales that would be. That equates to, roughly, 11,428,571 sales.
Pac-Man got 7 million sales.
Super Mario Bros. sold 40 million, roughly.
Super Mario 64? 11 million.
Wii Sports sold 30 million copies, roughly.
I could go on, as several more top that sales amount. In short, nothing groundbreaking about this. I'm sure if Super Mario Bros. cost $100 a pop, it would be permanently the biggest moneymaker in gaming history.
Something along the lines of 'That person just stole from the local fruit cart!' giving the player an option to care and 'shout' something along the lines of 'stop thief!', or not care at all and ignore it. If enough people 'shout' about the negative action, NPC guards kick them out of town. So, if someone was kill stealing, or trying to destroy an entire crop, if enough people were bothered by it, that person would no longer be allowed on the premise. If they wanted to come back, they would have to do good deeds or something to be allowed back in, or work to undo whatever problem they had caused.
Final Fantasy X-2 was paaainful. If you haven't played it or seen it yet....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyqX1SNuwzc. That pretty well covers it.
The closest man made light you can see is our neighbor's lights inside their house. Otherwise, on a clear night, you can see every star available to us.
Hopefully we don't have 6 feet of snow on this day, of course.
If it was electronic, the only excuse they could bring up if they didn't feel like doing work is that the server was down.
I like modernizing things...it's creepy that the industry which keeps us from dying from small pox still remains only partially digital.
And...which XII did you play? Did you miss Vaan, Penelo, and Ashe being from that game? Or did you mean XI? Roman numerals means 2 'I' after X = not an odd number.
X-2 had a whole new problem: sacred summoner transformed into Britney Spears. In the opening sequence, they transformed the blitzball arena to a pop idol singing stadium, where we see a fake Yuna touching herself. Of course, we find out that Yuna does this all the time now with pop singing. If you want to even aaact as though that kind of game is deep, you are silly xD She took on the role of annoying very quickly. Unless, of course, you find teeny boppers to be very good musicians, in which case this abomination was a wonderful game.
I played X, X-2, and XII. Those would be the most recent ones (not including the online one, which I wouldn't include on this list as it is the only PC one). Ten involved whiny Tidus. Ten the sequel involved Britney Spears breaking Spira (I quit once she made it stop storming on the thunder plains by SINGING). 12 involved child Vaan who grew more childish as the plot developed.
The older ones do not follow this model perfectly, but several do.
One character will be excessively whiny and obnoxious (like Tidus whining about getting sucked into a kickass adventure with people like Auron and Wakka, AND getting a girlfriend out of it; or Vaan going from somewhat bearable to not knowing why he's even there and being an obnoxious brat). This one will possibly be blonde, and most likely be the 'main' character.
One character will be hilarious, like Wakka.
One or more inherently cool guys, who do awesome things in cutscenes.
A slew of women that tend to annoy (Yuna wants to die reallyreally bad, Ashe wants power, Penelo is a sidekick to the sidekick).
Main character should have little to nothing to do with the other people. Either fell outta the sky, or is not a leader/soldier but gets dragged in anyway. I know that earlier Final Fantasy (AKA before 10) games don't follow this, but since they've released a few games following this pattern, I'm thinking that'll be this.
Even so, I'm sure it'll be a cinematic masterpiece. The story is always awesome, and the graphics are always spectacular. The battles are fun, if not repetitive, and the game will probably have a toooon of little goodies to go get.
Furthermore, if we are giving Israel back to its' original people, we better damn well do that for the rest of the peoples of this world. Granted, we don't have enough land to be giving it back to who it belongs to, but why give some people more rights than others?
Until we can make new land so these people we displace to give back old chunks of land to people who barely have a bloodline to trace to said old land, we ought not be giving it back to people.
And, my problem is that when they take land, it is called justified and right (in some cases, it's stated that they flat out -didn't- take any land). I get that the Palestinians hit first, but...well, if someone plopped down in your backyard because the mayor told them they legally owned it, would you not be a little pissed, especially when the mayor didn't care about what you said? And when you retaliate against this land being taken, the result is that more land is taken, and no one takes heed to your cries. You're on your own. Should you be friendly with this person who is on your land?
But hey, who cares that the first strike was when a bunch of countries decided to divvy up land they have no rights to. Palestine hit the land they took first, therefore, Palestine is villainous, and Israel should not be stopped.
To give you a faaaaint idea of what I'm hinting at. Imagine if the US wasn't in the UN, and the UN decided that Native Americans needed their land back. So, they gave them the entire east coast of the US, to be their land. They were given basically whatever they wanted, and they began to push the US citizens gradually to the west, claiming various areas that are more desirable than others (IE, they take Yellowstone national park, leave us Death valley). They are far richer than the US citizens, and have far more support (although Canada and Mexico support the US citizens, lets just say the UN has marked them as third world terrorists). So, let's say that the US citizens scrap together some money, and a small group that want to win back their land, bomb the native Americans. The retaliation? The natives start bombing the civilians that didn't have a thing to do with it. They keep bombing, despite the UN telling them to stop.
Seems like a stretch.
Of course, I don't see why Israel was reinstated. People lived there after the Israelites got wiped out, and then the rest of the world told the Palestinians (arguably not the same exact people who did this), were told to shove over.
I'll probably get modded troll though...it's very mean and uncool to be pro-Palestine civilians. Nope, if you think Israel is wrong, you are a pro-terrorist.
I recall playing a game called Goonzu, and people would stand on event NPCs so that no one else could do the event. Sure, they couldn't do the event because they were preventing others from doing it, but they simply didn't care.
There would probably be ways to stop them, like if they decided to play as 'villains' (read: douches), it would be possible to kill them, treating them as bad guys. So, while everyone plants something and has to wait a few days for the foliage to come back, or their pets get set free to become monsters again or some such, you can go 'kill' the bad guy that did this in the first place. By being killed, they would have to make a new character. So, they would have to start over as a little nublet, level up, skill up, whatever, and then they could go be obnoxious again. If they really have that much energy to go and hinder people's growth for a few days, it would at least give everyone a fun event of 'chase down the jerk and get revenge'.
On the other hand, this would take more coding power than just a handful of developers throwing code out there so the confused players can run into bugs and exploits.
Plus it would be too expensive for an MMO budget. And if it was too hard, who would wanna do it anyway? It's much easier to just throw out the basic 'click this once, wait until it dies from repetitive whacking, click the next one' script where you kill to get everything, then to make it more complex.
The point of dying was to add some form of realism: it taught you that you needed to not suck at this game, you needed to come up with strategies or else you will lose progress (sometimes the progress was based on when you last saved, and not just a checkpoint). If you never lose progress, you really have no incentive to play with any style except run in there mashing buttons like a maniac until everything dies.
It seems like a grand waste of time; why even bother playing? Just go on youtube and watch the cutscenes, if any, and there you go. You just put as much effort into the game as they did.
I disagree. I haven't been able to find a way to enjoy ANY holiday with my family, because all they do is sit around and talk about what happened 30 years ago. Playing Wii Fit gives them something to laugh at: each other. It's fun, it gets them all working together. No 50 year old wants to watch you beat Gears of War, trust me. They might be fascinated by the graphics for 20-30 minutes, but they won't watch for long, and they can't grasp it as quickly if you let them try.
And I'm sorry, but the Wii's 'inferior' game library sure beats having nothing but 'M for mature' war games that have 3 differing features; yah, the changes in storyline are drastic, but the gameplay is nearly identical. Arguably, being able to choose from Wii Sports, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, or Zelda makes for a wider variety.
But, even more than that, it has backwards compatibility. PS3 opted to phase it out. So you get all of the gamecube games, plus one more: N64, NES, SNES, SEGA, and a slew of older systems. Yes, you have to pay for them, but it certainly beats playing it in ROM format on the computer-or dusting off the old system itself.
So yes, tell me again, why does the Wii library suck? Oh yeah, not enough war games. We need more of those. Less creative, new, differing games. Those blow. We need Halo 4, we need Guitar Hero 37, we need Fallout 9.
Nevermind that the Wii has some online gameplay (keep in mind that most of the online gameplay games available to PS3 and Xbox360 are war/sports games), that it has had free internet browsing almost from the beginning, with a good enough zoom to get almost full screen video on youtube with great streaming; it's not -HD-, so it clearly sucks.
I laugh at this. I really do. I didn't buy a game system to -cough- GO ON THE INTERNET AND WATCH VIDEOS. I bought a game system to -gasp- PLAY GAMES. If I had wanted to play Halo 3 online, I would have bought an Xbox360 and gone online; but I don't. I want to play Zelda; I want to play Metroid Prime.
Call me old school, but goddammit people, why is the Wii the equivalent to Windows Vista? Oooo scary, it doesn't have HD video. Wanna know something else? You don't pay extra to go online.
I think that video gamers aren't video gamers anymore. They're buying game systems to browse the internet. They're buying game systems to watch movies. They're buying game systems to listen to music. It seems as though gamers don't want video games; they want a tiny bit of Halo 3 to go with their movies.
And btw, I noticed a comment stating that the video quality is so poor on their 50" plasma that they shut it off. I have a 42" plasma...so does that added 8" really just -destroy- the quality? Video quality is great-unless you are talking about youtube videos, in which case that is youtube.
If you want great video quality, buy a PS3. If you want great online gameplay, buy an Xbox360 and pay the subscription costs. If you want to play new games, involving more interacting than pressing 3 buttons for 5 hours as your ass gets bigger, buy a Wii. Simple as that.
When I'm playing Wii Fit, I'm not going "Ooooo these damn graphics are so terrible, how angry they make me" while I am trying to beat my hula hoop score.
I love me some Wii Boxing, but that doesn't mean I won't wrestle in with Final Fantasy or Doom.
And what the hell? Wii doesn't immerse you? Metroid Prime, anyone? Legend of Zelda? They're just as immersive as the normal games, plus you have to interact to make them do things, most notably in the Zelda game, where you have to move the remote to slash. Arguing that pushing three buttons for 10 hours immerses one more than moving your entire body just because the cutscenes are higher detail is borderline retarded.
The average gamer has a few hours to spend on gaming every day; and considering that all games can be played on bare bones computers (with a few exceptions), there is no incentive for the average gamer to drop a few thousand more on a computer that gets little mileage.
A hardcore gamer that spends 10+ hours a day on a specific game would love a gaming PC, however, as they would go faster.
However, internet connection plays in more than base computer settings for online games. If your connection sucks, you can't do much about it. A better investment for these hardcore mmo players would be to purchase the high speed, $60 a month internet connection.
The younger generation already has a good grasp on computer usage; having freshly graduated from high school, I can say that the schools already push computer and business futures for all of their students. They were downsizing the music and art programs in our school.
What we really need is a law protecting art and music. Computer knowledge is great, but they're pushing uniformity in the student base, and mocking creativity. Most of the kids I knew could stare at a computer screen for 10 hours without blinking but couldn't be assed to read a book for 20 minutes without bitching.
Prioritize before it's too late.
In all honesty, I think censoring the internet is sort of like censoring a library...
Libraries involve borrowing books, not buying them, and sometimes even borrowing DVDs and music, for any extent of time (you do pay late fees, but if you never return it and never go back, not much they can do). We should, therefore, shut down libraries, as these people using them are not paying for the original book, nor are they buying their own copy of the DVD or CD they borrowed. Video rental stores should also be shut down, and game rental stores should be burned.
They're all morons. BitTorrent: 1 person buys the item, then rips it and puts it online. Thousands of people obtain it without paying. Video Store: 1 copy of the item is purchased, and thousands of people rent it, obviously not paying for their own copy. But you don't see them shutting down video stores for lost profits.
As for child porn...I always thought it was funny how they handled that. Watch child porn online = punishment/removal of said child porn. Get drawings of child porn = punishment/removal of said child porn. But...isn't it much less harmful to have them watch cartoony vids, or vids that already exist, then say 'well, you have no harmless way of slaking your disgusting lust, take that!'. I wouldn't be surprised if their attempt at preventing the spread of child porn resulted in an increase in child molestation, kidnap, and possibly even an increase of child porn vids that are 'homemade'. It's disgusting and vile, yes, but for Chrissakes, if you can't stop it until it already happened, do these people really sleep better knowing they stopped videos from being watched, but can do -nothing- to stop child rape? Let them watch the vids = they don't have to go grab a kid themselves.
Similarly, if you take out the option to share a game/music/video, do you really think those people will say "Well, better go buy a copy at $60". No; they'll boycott you. Or, they'll steal a copy for realz. Or, they'll borrow somebody's copy and rip their own copy.
These idiots in their little government buildings need to leave the internet alone; they clearly don't know what they are doing.
Of course, I find myself only spending money on bands that I have been loyal to for quite some time (IE, System of a Down), and using SkreemR to seek out other stuff. The iTunes DRM is very easy to bypass, so I have no problem with removing it. Granted, it'd be far more enjoyable to not have to waste time breaking DRMs, but for the most part Apple's got no reason to stop using it if people won't stop using their services.
The only annoying thing is that I purchased things from iTunes on two separate computers, and getting them both on one computer is a giant complicated 'go-through-this-hoop-to-leap-over-the-pitfall' puzzle.
Boycott's don't work anymore, because there is a huge gap in American internet users: some get this stuff, others got no clue what it is. The ones that don't get what DRM is flat out don't care, and they outnumber the ones that do care, so any boycott done will do no good. So long as the 'ignorant masses' exist, with endless news channels telling them 'DRM good, no-DRM bad', they will not boycott.
So....you're angry that people are watching your stuff for free? Considering the, for the sake of argument, millions that these artists make as is from commercials, CDs, individual songs, music vids on MTV and VH1, concerts, and memorabilia sales, do they -seriously- need that extra revenue?
It ain't like they only make $30k a year, like the typical joe-schmoe. No, let's make joe-schmoe pay more so that these artists can make another million.
Ahahahaha -coughs- sorry, that was my BS detector going off.
It's incredibly easy for people of faith to defend their religion. After all, they went to that church and wasted the equivalent of years of their life within it every Sunday. Somebody telling them otherwise would be ridiculous!
Religion carries its' weight in the same way a parasite does: it may not harm the host right away, hell, it might even help the host; but it will kill the host if the host no longer benefits it. Right now, it sees gays as a problem in society, so instead of helping us, it is fighting to keep their rights down (all while saying they strongly support gay rights and love gays, so that they do not lose any of their loyal members).
The reason why religion starts things, is because people give them millions of dollars. Furthermore, whatever they start, ends up supporting them more than anyone else. If you want this shiny new thing, you better be good at pretending to be religious, or else you can't have it.
Although tbh with you, monotheistic religions breed hatred, because the only way that religion survives...is by recruiting the unwashed masses; the idiots that can't work a toaster, or thank Jesus for saving their dog from a horrible fire that also killed every human in the building. This large group of people speak the loudest: they say "this is what our religion accepts as good!". You can deny it up and down, but right now the huge religious squabble in the US over gay marriage is clearly not a thought-powered battle.
It amuses me that their only means to recruit people, is to force them to join by making it mandatory to learn about it.
Of course, their other method is sinister, in which they take desperate and depressed people, and bring them in with promises to heal their pain (sort of the same as Jesus 'love bombs', except without thousands of years of support and indoctrination).
It's nice and all that we have freedom of speech and religion, but come on. There should be at least an attempt to stop this. Make laws that forbid people from donating more than a certain amount to a church every year (IE, they can only receive enough to keep their buildings maintained every year). It just sickens me how this bullshit can thrive around stupidity like this.