back in the 1860s, and it's even less likely to work in the age of jet warplanes.
A thousand gun nuts with AR-15s or whatever still are no match for a small squad of AH-64s or whatever.
Sure, you could go guerrilla and turn America into an Iraq-style hellhole, but there's no way you could actually WIN.
If you have a military that is unwilling to fight on the side of the American army, and a large resistance you will win. It's simply a battle for the hearts and the minds of the military. Do you think 60 - 70 million Americans couldn't resist the US military? Do you think half of the military or more wouldn't defect to the other side if they didn't believe in what they were fighting for?
And most importantly, the media would just call you terrorist kooks and you'd get no support from the flabby masses.
Amusing, but I think the flabby masses, at least some of them would resist if the US ever scrapped the constitution. I refuse to believe that Americans are so comfy that they wouldn't rise up and fight for their country and freedom if it were truly threatened.
What are the chances people would herd dissidents and unwanted elements of society into camps where they would be worked to death or gassed, then thrown into ovens?
Pretty likely if you live in a balkenized country who is pissed off at having to accept what they see as an unfair truce and are looking for someone to blame for their problems. Pretty unlikely in America today though
What are the chances corporations who stand to benefit from a military build-up would look the other way or help the government to commit immoral acts?
Think critically, does the government really want to spend all of this money on a war if it wasn't important? Do you really believe someone with the moral beliefs that Bush has would sell his children down the river so some of his already rich friends could make more money? I seriously doubt most of the conspiricy theories people come up with to explain the war on terror, because they don't have enough logic or truth to back them up.
What are the chances a whole nation can be duped into ignoring horrible actions perpetrated by their government by creating a percieved threat to their lives?
Pretty good, but I guess it all depends on what you see as 'horrible actions'. If you think the US is engaged in these actions now, what do you believe them to be?
I'm not saying that the right to bear arms is a bad thing. If you want to ownone, that's your perogative. I'm just saying the *first thing* they'll do is take away your guns, and they'll amend the Constitutions to do it.
My point exactly. Which is why things like the patriot act don't bother me. I'll know the shit is about to hit the fan when they try to seriously fuck with the second amendment, because that is the one that gives citizens power over the government.
To put it another way: When the speech to start a revolution becomes a crime, it will be a crime to own a gun.
Exactly, because if they block the speech to start a revolution, they will have to make it a crime to own a gun. There is a big difference though between the speech that causes a revolution, and the one that is plotting to kill innocent people. It's the age old "Just because you have freedom of speech, it doesn't mean you can yell "FIRE" in a movie theater".
I'm also saying that I'll get my off-the-grid house and stay out of the whole thing. I never wanted to be on this planet in the first place.
Maybe that's why we should all go buy M1s and Bradley APCs to haul the kids to and from soccer practice. And I bet I could get to DisneyWorld really fast if I flew in my personal F-15. Clearing a landing strip once I get therewould be easy; just strafe and bomb the parking lot.
Where can I pick up so mutated anthrax? For duck hunting.
This is typical stuff from people who believe in your viewpoints. You try to make a joke out of it, because you know there is no hope for winning a serious debate.
If you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. If the government wanted to force the people to do its bidding, it would have no trouble doing so. Those who resisted would be woefully outnumbered.
You must be joking right? Surely, you don't understand the numbers behind the situation. There are 60 million gun owners in America who own about 250 million guns. The US Military along with the national guard has 1.2 million soldiers. How do 1.2 million people "woefully" outnumber 60 million? What is the likelyhood of National Guardsman or soldiers actually firing on another American citizen or standing up for a facist government?
The American citizen is better equipped than any other to fight off a government that oversteps its bounds. The grandparents point that "you lose the power to protect yourself from the government" from bills like the patriot act isn't accurate. The second amendment protects the American people from the government more than any other ever could.
Yeah, your.22 revolver might work on the thug stealing your TV, but I don't think it would stop a squad of troops raiding your house and arresting you for owning it.
Another innacurate statement, one third of the weapons sold in the US are handguns, the others...about 167 million are rifles and shotguns. Do you really think if the government flipped into facist mode the gun nuts wouldn't join with regular citizens and hole up together somewhere and fight to the bitter end? Do you think the military would fight for such a government? American soldiers aren't like those in the past, they are very free thinking.
As you give up liberties so the government can protect you, you lose the power to protect yourself from the government. And history shows that people have a lot more to fear from their own government than from external threats.
History may show that, but do you know what protects Americans from their government? The second amendment. While people can whine and moan about America's "Gun Culture" the fact is the American government could never turn into a dictatorship since the Amount of American Citizens with guns outnumbers the US Military by about 10 to 1.
BTW, since the poster seem to be convenced that Bush is the only one who would increase the deficit, how do you think that Kerry is going to pay for all of his "I have a plan"'s.
Now this is insightful, because it highlights the main problem in government today. There is no party that is fiscally conservative anymore. It used to be that the democrats would reccommend more spending for soical programs, the the republicans would argue against it. There was a nice balance of power, there the most important social programs would happen, but the fluff got cut. The Neo-Cons and republicans of today spend like drunken sailors. The democrats are no better, but the shift of the republican party to the left along with the war on terror has led to record deficits. Both parties have teamed up to spend us into third world status. Don't believe me? Try googling the No-Lobbyist-Left-Behind Act if you are interested.
This should be easy! Cause, of course Microsoft owns the rights to all those games.
Oh wait...
Do you really think Capcom/Midway wouldn't go for it if they were getting a cut? Midway is selling MK1 and MK2 for only 19.99. These aren't exactly killer apps nowadays. At least not offline.
I think it's time to choose, people. This saga is not just another expression of the Homeric archetype, extolling old hierarchies of princes, wizards and demigods. By making its centerpiece the romanticization of a mass murderer, "Star Wars" has sunk far lower. It is unworthy of our attention, our enthusiasm -- or our civilization.
Homoeric? You mean Chewie was gay? No way man, the gunbelt was just a fashion statement.;)
as Darth Vader murders billions with the press of a button -- but none of those casualties matters next to the personal saga of a great one. The slaughtered victims are mere minions. Extras, without families or hopes to worry about shattering. Spear-carriers. Only the demigod's personal drama is important....(4 more pages of crap skipped)
I read this whole thing, can I have those 10 minutes of my life back? Thx.
Hey Microsoft, if you want my money for X-Box live, then offer all the old Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct and Virtual Fighter titles for online competitve play. Hold tournaments for money like heat.net used to. There is no way I'm dropping 50$ on your network unless it does something better/different from Mame with Kaillara.
I don't think that MK did such contributions to gameplay. The block button is solely used in some 3D games, and every 3D fighter (that is not a conversion from an old 2D fighter) is based on Virtua Fighter (which has a block button and juggles). Since Virtua Fighter is only a year older than MK, I can say that, most probably the game was developed without influence from MK.
It's actually almost 2 years older, when you consider that MK came out in early 1992, and VF didn't come out until late 1993. I know that MK had been out for a few months by summer 1992, and VF didn't come out until late 1993 (I got hired at an arcade in September 1993). With trade shows and what not, I wouldn't be suprised if VF took the Juggle combo feature from MK, or at least the block button. It came out almost 2 years later, plus with trade shows I'm sure Sega had known about the features if not played MK long before VF. I know I played VF3 about 4-6 months before it even came out in the US arcades because I went to a trade show that year.
In playing the two games, you can tell as far as the fighting system goes, VF took more from MK than SF.
In fact, the MK game that I most enjoyed, was MK3, due to the run button. I think that it made for a more dynamic gameplay. The dial-a-combo was crap, though.
The dial-a-combo thing killed it, and the run button turned the game into Run-throw-Run-Dial-a combo-run throw-run throw cheesefest. I always liked the gameplay of MK2, sure it was a bit slower, but there was much more strategy and balanced risk/reward involved.
I think that the importance of MK lies in the fact that was the game that promoted more than any other, a clasification system for videogames in USA.
The third one was. While hardcore fighting game fans still gravitate more to the Street Fighter Series, MK3 and before always seemed to beat them in the collection boxes, at least at the arcades where I worked.
Yeah, Alpha 2 was the best.
Yeah it probably was the best SF game, but I played the early ones (all the way back to sf1!) so much in the arcade I love those too. Overall I think capcom took the better route, improving on good gameplay over time while midway and boon feel the need to change something big or throw in a new gimmick or two every time.
Both franchises are pretty bad now, I used to play Capcom vs SNK EO on X-Box live and it was pretty shitty. I play MKD on PS2 online now, and it sucks too. Maybe I'm just becoming jaded.
None of those were in the 1st or 2nd MKs...how can they be "classic"?
Huh? The code unlocks these characters among others
Jax, Old Raiden, Kung Lao, Cage, Sonya, Shang Tsung, Kitana
All of the above characters are from MK2. Three of them were playable in MK1, a game that only had 7 playable characters. Which means that all the characters from MK1 except Kano (afaik) are playable. So yes, the code allows you to play classic characters as described in the summary.
Mortal Kombat was known for "Time Released" characters. Being that consoles can maintain clock time, it could be whats going on.
Nope, that was Tekken. Mortal Kombat 3 had one character (smoke) who was released with a code (The Ultimate Kombat Kode) in the arcade. See gamefaqs. Maybe the characters are released in some other way (1000 multiplayer wins?) or maybe they just weren't put in the finished game. You have to fight Jax and the other characters in storyline (konquest) mode, so perhaps he was included for just that.
(I can't understand why there is such a craze over this title. The MK series has always had horrible gameplay, and the reviews for MK: Deception say that this "feature" remains.)
Well Zangief, I can understand your bias, being one of the street fighter characters and all, but the early Mortal Kombat games revolutionized modern fighting games as far as gameplay goes. They were the first games to implement juggle combos, which are included in many of today's fighting games (Tekken, DOA, etc) and even your beloved Street Fighter series. They also were the first with a block button which is still utilized in some fighting games. I will agree that every gameplay feature added to MK after MK2 has been utter crap, but you can't overlook the original contribution MK made to fighting game gameplay in the early 90's. I still play the MK series, and every new street fighter game that comes out in the hopes that one day, one of them will come out that doesn't suck.
PS- I can easly make a case that every Street Fighter game since Street Fighter Super Turbo has had horrid scrub friendly gameplay with the exception of Alpha 2.
How about a Western based MMORPG? Gunfights, bank and train robbers, miner 49ers, saloons, gambling, Deadwood....on and on and on....
Just wondering. Probably not much call for it
Actually there is one in development. Fronteir 1859 is a western based MMORPG which is also going to feature PvP that is policed by the players. It should be interesting.
Notice how this lawsuit got little to no coverage in the mainstream press? On CNN these stories are under the "top stories" section
Eminem video irks Michael Jackson
Elvis 911 call ends in Blues Brother's arrest
Office pool claims $214M Powerball pot
Are these stories really more importnant than this one, even if Badnarik is a fringe candidate? Even if you click on CNN's "politics" section you won't see a story about this. I think the news outlets have become far too involved in politics and spinning politics rather (no pun intended) than just reporting them.
Yeah, it's funny how all this "debate reform" came shortly after (in political terms) perot managed 19% of the popular vote in 1992. I also find it amusing that lifelong Republican Pat Buchanan who was a candidate for being Deep Throat in the Nixon administration, and is considered a racist/anti-semite by some decided to ditch the Republican party and head to the Reform party in 2000 thus tanking it to the point where it would not get federal election funds anymore.
While many here will debate the fairness of the 15% clause
There is no debating the 15% clause, it's unfair to third parties. Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).
At least they have unions to stick up for them. We basically have nothing to protect us from, for example, forced/unpaid overtime. Furthermore, there is basically no risk of outsourcing garbagemen to India.
If you are nice, after you are outsourced maybe the garbage men will let you come work for them and they can explain to us 'smart' IT guys what a union is. If you wonder who the new guy next to you is, it will probably be me!
As for the wasted vote argument, so you should choose your lesser of evils candidate, remember, if you choose the lesser of evils, you have still chosen evil.
Not to mention, a political party only needs 5% of the vote to get federal funding in the next election which is a big step forward. The media *never* mentions that. If Nader, Badnarik or Peroutka could hack out 5% of the vote they would have a legit shot at the next election.
Oh yeah, disinfo is a GREAT source. The very title of the website says "The gateway to the underground - news, politics, conspiracy and weirdness."
While the parent article is poorly worded, and spaced like it was typed up by an ADD patient it's main point is true. For a better source check this article out:
1996: "NON-EVENT"
Perot is excluded in a two-party deal sanctioned by the CPD, according to George Stephanopolous. The Clinton aide revealed his campaign's negotiations with the Dole campaign in a February 1997 panel discussion on the '96 election ("Campaign for President: The Managers Look at '96," Harvard University Institute of Politics).
STEPHANOPOLOUS: "[The Dole campaign] didn't have leverage going into negotiations. They were behind. They needed to make sure Perot wasn't in it. As long as we would agree to Perot not being in it, we could get everything else we wanted going in. We got our time frame, we got our length, we got our moderator."
CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Why didn't you have the debates when people were watching the election?"
STEPHANOPOLOUS: "Because we didn't want them to pay attention. And the debates were a metaphor for the campaign. We wanted the debates to be a non-event."
The 1996 debates have shrinking audiences that average 41 million viewers, less than half that of the '92 debates.
2000: 15 PERCENT BARRIER ANNOUNCED
The CPD announces that it will exclude candidates from presidential debates unless they have 15 percent support in national polls on the eve of the debates (CPD news release, 1/6/00). Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).
It's obvious the CPD is run by the two parties. The question is, how do you get people to realize this and actually care?
No. Alledegly labelling regulations help consumers ("smarter decisions", above), but it is not a free market if the supplier has no legal choice about how they label their products. Free markets operate with the principle of "caveat emptor", or let the buyer beware. If you don't like unlabeled goods, don't buy from them. If you don't trust the label, get a third party opinion, like from a consumer magazine.
And where does this leave people with peanut allergies? Dead? How about people like me that have allergies to foods that aren't common problems for people, like corn?
People have such zealotry twards certain abstract beliefs, they forget about humanity first. That is sad.
Do you really think your belief in a total free market system is more important that saving, or helping human lives? Don't get me wrong, I think economies should be based on a free market regulated enough to protect consumers, but with some things you just can't say "caveat emptor" and fuck the world the market is more important. For example, what do you think of warning labels on asprin warning that drinking while taking asprins can cause ulcers? Is that an unreasonable constraint on a free market?
Actually it's not, ties happen in the NFL every few years. There was one in 2002 the last one before that was in 1997. Ralph Nader winning the election would be more like the team planes for Every NFL team other than the Miami Dolphins going down in the same weekend and the Dolphins winning the superbowl by default.
As a person who only plays FPS games online, I wonder since Half Life 2 isn't going to have multiplayer, and CS source is basically CS with a very souped up graphical and physics engine, why would I pay for this? Maybe it's because I played the CS Source beta and was unimpressed. The original CS with all the mods available is much more enjoyable to play now, HL2 will be interesting for me when CS 2 comes out.
It would have been nice to have seen how many hours a week each person played along with the avatars. Also, it would have been interesting if the writer actually followed the person around a bit and saw if their personality was the same online.
I usually model my character after myself, but I'm even more of an asshole online than I am in real life, which takes a lot of work. After seeing pic number 5, I might be a little less likely to grief/pk people in MMORPG's though.
Slashdot Mirror
back in the 1860s, and it's even less likely to work in the age of jet warplanes. A thousand gun nuts with AR-15s or whatever still are no match for a small squad of AH-64s or whatever. Sure, you could go guerrilla and turn America into an Iraq-style hellhole, but there's no way you could actually WIN.
If you have a military that is unwilling to fight on the side of the American army, and a large resistance you will win. It's simply a battle for the hearts and the minds of the military. Do you think 60 - 70 million Americans couldn't resist the US military? Do you think half of the military or more wouldn't defect to the other side if they didn't believe in what they were fighting for?
And most importantly, the media would just call you terrorist kooks and you'd get no support from the flabby masses.
Amusing, but I think the flabby masses, at least some of them would resist if the US ever scrapped the constitution. I refuse to believe that Americans are so comfy that they wouldn't rise up and fight for their country and freedom if it were truly threatened.
What are the chances people would herd dissidents and unwanted elements of society into camps where they would be worked to death or gassed, then thrown into ovens?
Pretty likely if you live in a balkenized country who is pissed off at having to accept what they see as an unfair truce and are looking for someone to blame for their problems. Pretty unlikely in America today though
What are the chances corporations who stand to benefit from a military build-up would look the other way or help the government to commit immoral acts?
Think critically, does the government really want to spend all of this money on a war if it wasn't important? Do you really believe someone with the moral beliefs that Bush has would sell his children down the river so some of his already rich friends could make more money? I seriously doubt most of the conspiricy theories people come up with to explain the war on terror, because they don't have enough logic or truth to back them up.
What are the chances a whole nation can be duped into ignoring horrible actions perpetrated by their government by creating a percieved threat to their lives?
Pretty good, but I guess it all depends on what you see as 'horrible actions'. If you think the US is engaged in these actions now, what do you believe them to be?
I'm not saying that the right to bear arms is a bad thing. If you want to ownone, that's your perogative. I'm just saying the *first thing* they'll do is take away your guns, and they'll amend the Constitutions to do it.
My point exactly. Which is why things like the patriot act don't bother me. I'll know the shit is about to hit the fan when they try to seriously fuck with the second amendment, because that is the one that gives citizens power over the government.
To put it another way: When the speech to start a revolution becomes a crime, it will be a crime to own a gun.
Exactly, because if they block the speech to start a revolution, they will have to make it a crime to own a gun. There is a big difference though between the speech that causes a revolution, and the one that is plotting to kill innocent people. It's the age old "Just because you have freedom of speech, it doesn't mean you can yell "FIRE" in a movie theater".
I'm also saying that I'll get my off-the-grid house and stay out of the whole thing. I never wanted to be on this planet in the first place.
Now that sir, is a good plan.
Maybe that's why we should all go buy M1s and Bradley APCs to haul the kids to and from soccer practice. And I bet I could get to DisneyWorld really fast if I flew in my personal F-15. Clearing a landing strip once I get therewould be easy; just strafe and bomb the parking lot. Where can I pick up so mutated anthrax? For duck hunting.
.22 revolver might work on the thug stealing your TV, but I don't think it would stop a squad of troops raiding your house and arresting you for owning it.
This is typical stuff from people who believe in your viewpoints. You try to make a joke out of it, because you know there is no hope for winning a serious debate.
If you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. If the government wanted to force the people to do its bidding, it would have no trouble doing so. Those who resisted would be woefully outnumbered.
You must be joking right? Surely, you don't understand the numbers behind the situation. There are 60 million gun owners in America who own about 250 million guns. The US Military along with the national guard has 1.2 million soldiers. How do 1.2 million people "woefully" outnumber 60 million? What is the likelyhood of National Guardsman or soldiers actually firing on another American citizen or standing up for a facist government?
The American citizen is better equipped than any other to fight off a government that oversteps its bounds. The grandparents point that "you lose the power to protect yourself from the government" from bills like the patriot act isn't accurate. The second amendment protects the American people from the government more than any other ever could.
Yeah, your
Another innacurate statement, one third of the weapons sold in the US are handguns, the others...about 167 million are rifles and shotguns. Do you really think if the government flipped into facist mode the gun nuts wouldn't join with regular citizens and hole up together somewhere and fight to the bitter end? Do you think the military would fight for such a government? American soldiers aren't like those in the past, they are very free thinking.
As you give up liberties so the government can protect you, you lose the power to protect yourself from the government. And history shows that people have a lot more to fear from their own government than from external threats.
History may show that, but do you know what protects Americans from their government? The second amendment. While people can whine and moan about America's "Gun Culture" the fact is the American government could never turn into a dictatorship since the Amount of American Citizens with guns outnumbers the US Military by about 10 to 1.
BTW, since the poster seem to be convenced that Bush is the only one who would increase the deficit, how do you think that Kerry is going to pay for all of his "I have a plan"'s.
Now this is insightful, because it highlights the main problem in government today. There is no party that is fiscally conservative anymore. It used to be that the democrats would reccommend more spending for soical programs, the the republicans would argue against it. There was a nice balance of power, there the most important social programs would happen, but the fluff got cut. The Neo-Cons and republicans of today spend like drunken sailors. The democrats are no better, but the shift of the republican party to the left along with the war on terror has led to record deficits. Both parties have teamed up to spend us into third world status. Don't believe me? Try googling the No-Lobbyist-Left-Behind Act if you are interested.
This should be easy! Cause, of course Microsoft owns the rights to all those games. Oh wait...
Do you really think Capcom/Midway wouldn't go for it if they were getting a cut? Midway is selling MK1 and MK2 for only 19.99. These aren't exactly killer apps nowadays. At least not offline.
I think it's time to choose, people. This saga is not just another expression of the Homeric archetype, extolling old hierarchies of princes, wizards and demigods. By making its centerpiece the romanticization of a mass murderer, "Star Wars" has sunk far lower. It is unworthy of our attention, our enthusiasm -- or our civilization.
;)
Homoeric? You mean Chewie was gay? No way man, the gunbelt was just a fashion statement.
as Darth Vader murders billions with the press of a button -- but none of those casualties matters next to the personal saga of a great one. The slaughtered victims are mere minions. Extras, without families or hopes to worry about shattering. Spear-carriers. Only the demigod's personal drama is important....(4 more pages of crap skipped)
I read this whole thing, can I have those 10 minutes of my life back? Thx.
Hey Microsoft, if you want my money for X-Box live, then offer all the old Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct and Virtual Fighter titles for online competitve play. Hold tournaments for money like heat.net used to. There is no way I'm dropping 50$ on your network unless it does something better/different from Mame with Kaillara.
I don't think that MK did such contributions to gameplay. The block button is solely used in some 3D games, and every 3D fighter (that is not a conversion from an old 2D fighter) is based on Virtua Fighter (which has a block button and juggles). Since Virtua Fighter is only a year older than MK, I can say that, most probably the game was developed without influence from MK.
It's actually almost 2 years older, when you consider that MK came out in early 1992, and VF didn't come out until late 1993. I know that MK had been out for a few months by summer 1992, and VF didn't come out until late 1993 (I got hired at an arcade in September 1993). With trade shows and what not, I wouldn't be suprised if VF took the Juggle combo feature from MK, or at least the block button. It came out almost 2 years later, plus with trade shows I'm sure Sega had known about the features if not played MK long before VF. I know I played VF3 about 4-6 months before it even came out in the US arcades because I went to a trade show that year.
In playing the two games, you can tell as far as the fighting system goes, VF took more from MK than SF.
In fact, the MK game that I most enjoyed, was MK3, due to the run button. I think that it made for a more dynamic gameplay. The dial-a-combo was crap, though.
The dial-a-combo thing killed it, and the run button turned the game into Run-throw-Run-Dial-a combo-run throw-run throw cheesefest. I always liked the gameplay of MK2, sure it was a bit slower, but there was much more strategy and balanced risk/reward involved.
I think that the importance of MK lies in the fact that was the game that promoted more than any other, a clasification system for videogames in USA.
The third one was. While hardcore fighting game fans still gravitate more to the Street Fighter Series, MK3 and before always seemed to beat them in the collection boxes, at least at the arcades where I worked.
Yeah, Alpha 2 was the best.
Yeah it probably was the best SF game, but I played the early ones (all the way back to sf1!) so much in the arcade I love those too. Overall I think capcom took the better route, improving on good gameplay over time while midway and boon feel the need to change something big or throw in a new gimmick or two every time.
Both franchises are pretty bad now, I used to play Capcom vs SNK EO on X-Box live and it was pretty shitty. I play MKD on PS2 online now, and it sucks too. Maybe I'm just becoming jaded.
If that won't work, wait for the next compilation of classic Midway games, which is supposed to have MK2 and MK3 on it. :)
:/
It was actually released a few days ago Finally an arcade perfect port of MK2! It's too bad that isn't playable with a ps2/x-box online.
None of those were in the 1st or 2nd MKs...how can they be "classic"?
Huh? The code unlocks these characters among others
Jax, Old Raiden, Kung Lao, Cage, Sonya, Shang Tsung, Kitana
All of the above characters are from MK2. Three of them were playable in MK1, a game that only had 7 playable characters. Which means that all the characters from MK1 except Kano (afaik) are playable. So yes, the code allows you to play classic characters as described in the summary.
Mortal Kombat was known for "Time Released" characters. Being that consoles can maintain clock time, it could be whats going on.
Nope, that was Tekken. Mortal Kombat 3 had one character (smoke) who was released with a code (The Ultimate Kombat Kode) in the arcade. See gamefaqs. Maybe the characters are released in some other way (1000 multiplayer wins?) or maybe they just weren't put in the finished game. You have to fight Jax and the other characters in storyline (konquest) mode, so perhaps he was included for just that.
(I can't understand why there is such a craze over this title. The MK series has always had horrible gameplay, and the reviews for MK: Deception say that this "feature" remains.)
Well Zangief, I can understand your bias, being one of the street fighter characters and all, but the early Mortal Kombat games revolutionized modern fighting games as far as gameplay goes. They were the first games to implement juggle combos, which are included in many of today's fighting games (Tekken, DOA, etc) and even your beloved Street Fighter series. They also were the first with a block button which is still utilized in some fighting games. I will agree that every gameplay feature added to MK after MK2 has been utter crap, but you can't overlook the original contribution MK made to fighting game gameplay in the early 90's. I still play the MK series, and every new street fighter game that comes out in the hopes that one day, one of them will come out that doesn't suck.
PS- I can easly make a case that every Street Fighter game since Street Fighter Super Turbo has had horrid scrub friendly gameplay with the exception of Alpha 2.
100-200 milliseconds isn't much when you're deciding whether to attack that orc or not, but when trying to intercept a pass...
I dunno, but it works fine with Madden 2005 on my PS2.
How about a Western based MMORPG? Gunfights, bank and train robbers, miner 49ers, saloons, gambling, Deadwood....on and on and on.... Just wondering. Probably not much call for it
Actually there is one in development. Fronteir 1859 is a western based MMORPG which is also going to feature PvP that is policed by the players. It should be interesting.
Eminem video irks Michael Jackson
Elvis 911 call ends in Blues Brother's arrest
Office pool claims $214M Powerball pot
Are these stories really more importnant than this one, even if Badnarik is a fringe candidate? Even if you click on CNN's "politics" section you won't see a story about this. I think the news outlets have become far too involved in politics and spinning politics rather (no pun intended) than just reporting them.
Two words: "Reform Party."
Yeah, it's funny how all this "debate reform" came shortly after (in political terms) perot managed 19% of the popular vote in 1992. I also find it amusing that lifelong Republican Pat Buchanan who was a candidate for being Deep Throat in the Nixon administration, and is considered a racist/anti-semite by some decided to ditch the Republican party and head to the Reform party in 2000 thus tanking it to the point where it would not get federal election funds anymore.
While many here will debate the fairness of the 15% clause
There is no debating the 15% clause, it's unfair to third parties. Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).
At least they have unions to stick up for them. We basically have nothing to protect us from, for example, forced/unpaid overtime. Furthermore, there is basically no risk of outsourcing garbagemen to India.
If you are nice, after you are outsourced maybe the garbage men will let you come work for them and they can explain to us 'smart' IT guys what a union is. If you wonder who the new guy next to you is, it will probably be me!
As for the wasted vote argument, so you should choose your lesser of evils candidate, remember, if you choose the lesser of evils, you have still chosen evil.
Not to mention, a political party only needs 5% of the vote to get federal funding in the next election which is a big step forward. The media *never* mentions that. If Nader, Badnarik or Peroutka could hack out 5% of the vote they would have a legit shot at the next election.
While the parent article is poorly worded, and spaced like it was typed up by an ADD patient it's main point is true. For a better source check this article out:
It's obvious the CPD is run by the two parties. The question is, how do you get people to realize this and actually care?
No. Alledegly labelling regulations help consumers ("smarter decisions", above), but it is not a free market if the supplier has no legal choice about how they label their products. Free markets operate with the principle of "caveat emptor", or let the buyer beware. If you don't like unlabeled goods, don't buy from them. If you don't trust the label, get a third party opinion, like from a consumer magazine.
And where does this leave people with peanut allergies? Dead? How about people like me that have allergies to foods that aren't common problems for people, like corn?
People have such zealotry twards certain abstract beliefs, they forget about humanity first. That is sad.
Do you really think your belief in a total free market system is more important that saving, or helping human lives? Don't get me wrong, I think economies should be based on a free market regulated enough to protect consumers, but with some things you just can't say "caveat emptor" and fuck the world the market is more important. For example, what do you think of warning labels on asprin warning that drinking while taking asprins can cause ulcers? Is that an unreasonable constraint on a free market?
But that's impossible! ... Oh I get it. :)
Actually it's not, ties happen in the NFL every few years. There was one in 2002 the last one before that was in 1997. Ralph Nader winning the election would be more like the team planes for Every NFL team other than the Miami Dolphins going down in the same weekend and the Dolphins winning the superbowl by default.
As a person who only plays FPS games online, I wonder since Half Life 2 isn't going to have multiplayer, and CS source is basically CS with a very souped up graphical and physics engine, why would I pay for this? Maybe it's because I played the CS Source beta and was unimpressed. The original CS with all the mods available is much more enjoyable to play now, HL2 will be interesting for me when CS 2 comes out.
It would have been nice to have seen how many hours a week each person played along with the avatars. Also, it would have been interesting if the writer actually followed the person around a bit and saw if their personality was the same online.
I usually model my character after myself, but I'm even more of an asshole online than I am in real life, which takes a lot of work. After seeing pic number 5, I might be a little less likely to grief/pk people in MMORPG's though.