You have got to be kidding.
Most people think of China as a Third World country that can barely feed their population.
While this may be true in many areas, it's also true that they have incredible military power.
The USA would probably lose any war with China.
Could you site some military statistics to back this up? First off, China could Not win a Nuclear war with the US. China has about 20 nuclear missles. It would take 124 nuclear weapons specifically aimed at the correct places to disable America's ability to function as a nation and launch their own nukes. It would take 368 nukes to destroy China, but America has thousands of nukes.
China couldn't win a war against the US, they may have more foot soldiers, but they don't have the navy, air force, nukes or technology the US army has.
If it came down to a ground war, will those starving citizens fight for their facist regime or will they lay down their arms and surrender?
a modern Squaresoft RPG drama, joining a bunch of ragtag characters as they embark upon an epic adventure, or an old-style "twitch" game played on reactions alone, no story to speak of, no reward besides beating an arbitrary high score, and "game over" if I lose concentration for so much as a millisecond
You are comparing two different genres. The "Fast twitch" games of yesteryear compare more to todays FPS. I would venture to say that oldschool twitch games (ie Ninja gaiden on NES) had better storylines than some FPS do today (ie Unreal Tournament).
If you want to compare RPG's, Oldschool RPG's may not have looked very good, but I would put Ultima IV's storyline against any storyline out of an RPG today.
Some people will be turned off by the downtime. Some people just don't want to meet new people, either. I actually think the inherently repetitive gameplay has a lot of turn off value, too....
which at first sounds great but eventually you realize you are playing a single player game, it is not really a great game, and you are paying $15/month to play it. Not really a stunning deal.
I know for myself, sure I like to run into someone once in awhile and chat but I hate forced interaction and downtime. The reason I would play a MMO is for human competition, which translates mostly to PvP. Most of the MMO's I've played have had PvP restricted too much, or the combat system was just bad. (For the record I've tried SWG, Everquest, Earth and Beyond and UO {Recently}). I'm still waiting for a MMO that has a fun combat system, and free PvP. I'm hopefull for darkfall.
Ultima IV was the first game where you had to actually act ethical rather than kill everything in sight. It's storyline was much better than 1, 2 or 3. The idea of playing the messiah like Avatar was way out there for it's time.
downtime. I know downtime is unpopular, but if you have no time to pause and rest up a bit you will never get to know anything about anyone you are playing with because you will have no time to chat.
Do you think some (many?) players don't want to be bothered chatting in a MMO and that might be some of what turns the mainstream players off?
f one guy has a sixteen-inch thingy, all the other guys will
want their character to have an eighteen-incher, and if you allow that, it
won't be many more iterations of one-upmanship before you see guys running
around with, effectively, three legs, and I'm not sure it would stop there.
This is the perfect way to make leveling more fun in RPGs. You think dorkmar the barbarian is working his balls off now for level 60, just imagine if he could ad another half inch to his 5 foot "manhood"?
Actually, Super Mario World was the first (and maybe only... not sure) on Super Nintendo. So I guess we're considering 2 generations behind old school now. *sigh* indeed.
I was playing that game probably less than 10 years ago. I wouldn't quite consider that old school just because the technology made such a large leap.
Akk, you are right, I had Super Mario World confused with the poorly named Super Mario 64. Both were good games. I wouldn't call SMW old school either, to me old school is the classic consoles, and the stuff from the late 70's to the mid 80's. Really, you can't even throw the 8 bit consoles in there, because the games were so much more advaced then what you found on atari, activision or colecovision.
I think the list would have been more effective by dividing the consoles up into their bit-catagories/generations, or dividing time periods (ie up to 1984, 1984- 1994, 1994 - now) and platforms.
The other extreme would be funny. Imagine roleplaying a under-endowed wookie who's always trying to compensate? I'm all for the extra customizing, like another poster said, just make it apply to the female anatomy too. I look foward to seeing "hungbacca" and "Camel Toe Organa" in Star Wars Galaxies soon.
The fact that Mortal Kombat isn't included here is a joke. MK introduced more to fighting games than SF2 did. MK was the first game to have juggle combos, and combos that actually were ment to be in the game. The early SF2 "interrupt" combos were actually a glitch. Both games should be in there. While there are a lot of entries from the "classic era" of arcade gaming, there aren't a lot from the recent "fighting game" era of 92-98 when arcades became very popular again.
COMPUTER GAMES--FPS
Unreal Tournament should be here, not (maybe unreal).
COMPUTER GAMES--Other
Tetris should be under handheld, console, or arcade. Not here. The orginal Grand Theft Auto should be here.
CONSOLE GAMES--Old School
How is Atari's Adventure not here? And no pitfall? The writer of this article must be a bit young. If you are going to include a football game, it should be techmo bowl. Super Mario World is 64 bit IIRC and is included in "old school" for some reason. Metroid should be here, and probably quite a few others.
The fact that most male avatars tend to be exagerated also could be linked to the designers trying to compensate for their own insecurities, or the users trying to compensate also, or both.
Or maybe they just want to look better? Does someone really have to be insecure to want to look better than they do in real life? Do people really think of their avatar as "them"? I don't, but I can't speak for everyone. What you see in video games isn't much different from television, magazines, music videos, etc.
"the reason so many MMOGs follow the same paths... is that they were designed, built, and maintained by men." Of the respondents, Judith at Turbine Entertainment points out that "an audience that skews towards immature males will very likely have exaggeratedly female avatars for them to play with"
MMOG's seem to have more women players than any other online genre. They also seem feminized. I'm sure some people won't like that statement, but seriously, what other online games put such restrictions on killing/harming other players? What other online games make such a big deal over what your avatar looks like?
Take star wars galaxies for example, it's almost a barbie game online...You can be a dancer! Customize your clothes! Become a tailor or a chef! Only 1 in 500,000 of you will be Jedi though. YEY FUN! Is this what a typical teenage male wants to do? Give me a break.
As for the women characters being "exaggerated" aren't the men too? Maybe it's just that men don't (typically) have the same poor self-esteem when it comes to their body that many women do. I'd bet that 99/100ths of the men play avatars that have bodies they could never have, even if they tried.
I hope game developers don't take this seriously. I don't want to log on to matrix online and have to chose between my avatar looking like Rosie O'Donald, Opera, or Ms. Cleo.
The purpose of tenure is to ensure freedom of speech.
Tenure isn't needed for this. It is scary how freedom of speech has truely been taken away from us. Not just teachers, but workers everywhere. Sure, say whatever you want but if you offend SOMEONE you will lose your job.
I've found most professors use tenure as a shield to do whatever they want, including forcing their views or opinions on students instead of encouraging freedom of thought or respecting people with different opinions. Tenure doesn't help freedom of speech, it harms it.
RPGs must be divided into two categories before your statement rings true. Open-ended freeform RPGs are better on a PC. Daggerfall, and Morrowind are two good examples of this. Plot-driven RPGs are better on the console, or at least more popular. The Final Fantasy series, and a variety of others, who lead you along the plot, are more popular on the console.
I would say that the Final Fantasy series is an exception to the rule in recent years (ie FF7 and on). PC RPG's have evolved to the point where they are mostly open-ended with different storylines to follow, but when the PC was following the "Plot-Driven" RPG type it was dominating RPG games at that type of RPG also. (The Ultima series for example).
I'm not saying that there aren't good RPG games on the consoles (I've enjoyed many of them), or that there can't be. I just think if the consoles want to get into online gaming and try for mainstream appeal, they need to do what they do best. Making another MMORPG isn't a compelling reason to use a console to play online. A MMO GTA might be. They should go after a game genre that hasn't been put online yet, or hasn't been done well online yet.
Idiot, the difference in price is between a computer and a console. Wow are you stupid. As for the rest of that drivel, it's a good thing you posted anonymously so you can save your precious karma.
As usual, you show your stupidity. I didn't post it under my username so you would see it. I don't worry about my karma much, sorry. Also, if you weren't a moron you would realize most people who would play a console online have an ISP already, along with a PC so the price difference isn't a factor.
Why don't you go back to trolling the liberals like you do in your journal. You might be a bit better suited for that, because obviously you don't know what you are talking about here. Actually, your arguments in your journal are pretty weak also and your logic is flawed. I'm betting you are really a liberal who uses this account for trolling. No one can really be as stupid as you come across from your posts.
One: People who really get off on acting like complete jerks, ruining your gameplay experience with abusive behavior and cheating. These are the punks who 'pull' on Capcom vs. SNK 2 (quitting the game at the last possible second, thus giving you BOTH a loss in the rankings) and trash-talk endlessly
The 'pulling' problem was something microsoft should have taken care of. CvS2 on x-box was botched with the EO mode, and the way they handled pulls and rankings. I played with my mic on for the first day or two, but found no one ever had anything good to say so I would just turn it off.
As for the matchmaking problem, you are right it would be a lot better if online games had some type of matchmaking system, or at least told you how many hours the other guy has played. It wasn't too bad in CvS2, but there are plenty of games that have little to no ranking system whatsoever.
Calling you ignorant isn't really an insult to you. Ignorance just means you lack some bit of information.
Like you did when replying to me?
When you make statements like, "The consoles have to stop trying to beat the PC at what the PC does well and offer console players an experence they can't find on the PC or anywhere else." it shows that you are ignorant of the fact that online sports games are doing so well.
Re-read the sentence. I said, an experence that can't be found on the PC. Like I said before you can play madden 2004 on the PC. You keep ignoring that fact like it doesn't exist. I also clearly said OTHER than sports titles the consoles haven't done well online. Go back and re-read my first post. Have you read the whole thing yet? Are you still working on it?
And when I said exclusively playable online, I was of course referring to the consoles.
exclusively -[adv] without any others being included or involved.
If it's available on the PC, it's not exclusive to the consoles, which is what I was talking about it my first post. It's obvious from your posting history that you are a borderline troll, and not even a very good one. Do everyone a favor, stop posting on slashdot and take an english course.
The author of the article and you appear to both be ignorant of the widespread appeal of EA's Madden 2004, NCAA Football 2004, and the expected appeal of the rest of their sports line - exclusively playable online using a PS2.
Try re-reading my post, I said OTHER than sports games the consoles haven't released anything that is exclusive to the genres the consoles traditionally do well with. Also, Madden 2004 isn't "exclusively playable online with PS2" you can go online and play with the PC version as well.
The silly "ignorant" name calling isn't needed either, especially if you aren't going to read someones post before pressing reply.
There aren't any killer broadband titles for the consoles which appeal to console gamers, which is why online gaming hasn't taken off yet on the consoles.
Traditionally, the PC has been good in certain genres of games that translate well to multiplayer action. RPG's, FPS, RTS, and Simulation games are usually better on the PC than on the console.
Consoles are usually have better sports games, adventure/platform games, and fighting games.
So you would think that the consoles would take the games they are good at, and try to put them online. With the exception of sports games, the other two genres haven't been well represented. When they were done (ie, Capcom vs SNK EO) they were done poorly.
When you look at what the consoles have focused on, they have taken online games that are better on the PC (ie, FPS games) and tried to make them work on consoles. I saw no reason to play halo, even though I have x-box live because I'd rather play a FPS on the PC with a mouse and keyboard. Plus I knew I could just wait for the PC version while I played UT2003, UT, CS, etc. If the consoles want to get people to play online, they need to focus on what they are good at. Getting GTA online would have been big for sony playstation, as was discussed here
I would venture to say, most people that have x-box live or a ps2 online adapter are also PC gamers, or have the ability to play PC games online if they want to. The consoles have to stop trying to beat the PC at what the PC does well and offer console players an experence they can't find on the PC or anywhere else.
if there is a drug you/should/ be taking every day, there should also be a lifestyle change that should reflect that....
Why is that? I have to take Allegra everyday for allergies. Even a mega-overdose wouldn't kill me. I read overdose information + look up online all the meds I get prescribed before I take them, and I've found quite a few are like that. Your "lifestyle change" theory is beyond me. I would also be willing to bet, more people die a year due to human error when dosing themselves, then would die from a chip breaking/going haywire inside them.
You are just worried about your parents losing their jobs, right?;)
If there were a cop simulation, it might be about as much fun as running through the code of a C program.
Why?
One of the great things about GTA series is the planning you did in the missions. What car to use, how exactly to do it, etc. The vast majority of cops have something called procedure. Rather than creatively solving your problems, you "do it by the book". If you wish to deviate, you need to call headquarters and are more often given orders than a blank check to decide what to do. Who wants to make a game about following procedure?
Yeah those police quest games back in the day didn't sell at all. I wonder why they made like 6-7 sequals if they were so boring an nobody liked them?
Slashdot Mirror
You have got to be kidding. Most people think of China as a Third World country that can barely feed their population. While this may be true in many areas, it's also true that they have incredible military power. The USA would probably lose any war with China.
Could you site some military statistics to back this up? First off, China could Not win a Nuclear war with the US. China has about 20 nuclear missles. It would take 124 nuclear weapons specifically aimed at the correct places to disable America's ability to function as a nation and launch their own nukes. It would take 368 nukes to destroy China, but America has thousands of nukes.
China couldn't win a war against the US, they may have more foot soldiers, but they don't have the navy, air force, nukes or technology the US army has.
If it came down to a ground war, will those starving citizens fight for their facist regime or will they lay down their arms and surrender?
a modern Squaresoft RPG drama, joining a bunch of ragtag characters as they embark upon an epic adventure, or an old-style "twitch" game played on reactions alone, no story to speak of, no reward besides beating an arbitrary high score, and "game over" if I lose concentration for so much as a millisecond
You are comparing two different genres. The "Fast twitch" games of yesteryear compare more to todays FPS. I would venture to say that oldschool twitch games (ie Ninja gaiden on NES) had better storylines than some FPS do today (ie Unreal Tournament).
If you want to compare RPG's, Oldschool RPG's may not have looked very good, but I would put Ultima IV's storyline against any storyline out of an RPG today.
Some people will be turned off by the downtime. Some people just don't want to meet new people, either. I actually think the inherently repetitive gameplay has a lot of turn off value, too....
which at first sounds great but eventually you realize you are playing a single player game, it is not really a great game, and you are paying $15/month to play it. Not really a stunning deal.
I know for myself, sure I like to run into someone once in awhile and chat but I hate forced interaction and downtime. The reason I would play a MMO is for human competition, which translates mostly to PvP. Most of the MMO's I've played have had PvP restricted too much, or the combat system was just bad. (For the record I've tried SWG, Everquest, Earth and Beyond and UO {Recently}). I'm still waiting for a MMO that has a fun combat system, and free PvP. I'm hopefull for darkfall.
Ultima IV was the first game where you had to actually act ethical rather than kill everything in sight. It's storyline was much better than 1, 2 or 3. The idea of playing the messiah like Avatar was way out there for it's time.
downtime. I know downtime is unpopular, but if you have no time to pause and rest up a bit you will never get to know anything about anyone you are playing with because you will have no time to chat.
Do you think some (many?) players don't want to be bothered chatting in a MMO and that might be some of what turns the mainstream players off?
f one guy has a sixteen-inch thingy, all the other guys will want their character to have an eighteen-incher, and if you allow that, it won't be many more iterations of one-upmanship before you see guys running around with, effectively, three legs, and I'm not sure it would stop there.
This is the perfect way to make leveling more fun in RPGs. You think dorkmar the barbarian is working his balls off now for level 60, just imagine if he could ad another half inch to his 5 foot "manhood"?
Activision is a company that makes games, not a console. Maybe you're thinking of Intellivision?
I really need to stop posting before I have my morning coffee, yes I ment Intellivision.
Actually, Super Mario World was the first (and maybe only... not sure) on Super Nintendo. So I guess we're considering 2 generations behind old school now. *sigh* indeed. I was playing that game probably less than 10 years ago. I wouldn't quite consider that old school just because the technology made such a large leap.
Akk, you are right, I had Super Mario World confused with the poorly named Super Mario 64. Both were good games. I wouldn't call SMW old school either, to me old school is the classic consoles, and the stuff from the late 70's to the mid 80's. Really, you can't even throw the 8 bit consoles in there, because the games were so much more advaced then what you found on atari, activision or colecovision.
I think the list would have been more effective by dividing the consoles up into their bit-catagories/generations, or dividing time periods (ie up to 1984, 1984- 1994, 1994 - now) and platforms.
The other extreme would be funny. Imagine roleplaying a under-endowed wookie who's always trying to compensate? I'm all for the extra customizing, like another poster said, just make it apply to the female anatomy too. I look foward to seeing "hungbacca" and "Camel Toe Organa" in Star Wars Galaxies soon.
ARCADE GAMES
The fact that Mortal Kombat isn't included here is a joke. MK introduced more to fighting games than SF2 did. MK was the first game to have juggle combos, and combos that actually were ment to be in the game. The early SF2 "interrupt" combos were actually a glitch. Both games should be in there. While there are a lot of entries from the "classic era" of arcade gaming, there aren't a lot from the recent "fighting game" era of 92-98 when arcades became very popular again.
COMPUTER GAMES--FPS
Unreal Tournament should be here, not (maybe unreal).
COMPUTER GAMES--Other
Tetris should be under handheld, console, or arcade. Not here. The orginal Grand Theft Auto should be here.
CONSOLE GAMES--Old School
How is Atari's Adventure not here? And no pitfall? The writer of this article must be a bit young. If you are going to include a football game, it should be techmo bowl. Super Mario World is 64 bit IIRC and is included in "old school" for some reason. Metroid should be here, and probably quite a few others.
But I haven't seen any spyware for Mac OS and such, either.
and who exactly would find it? That girl who's paper "like disappeared" on windows?
Advancement system is boring : this has already been discussed here. It's boring if you wanna be master in 2 days. Normal people will find it ok.
Killing the same creatures over and over again with your axe is boring after about 30 minutes.
The fact that most male avatars tend to be exagerated also could be linked to the designers trying to compensate for their own insecurities, or the users trying to compensate also, or both.
Or maybe they just want to look better? Does someone really have to be insecure to want to look better than they do in real life? Do people really think of their avatar as "them"? I don't, but I can't speak for everyone. What you see in video games isn't much different from television, magazines, music videos, etc.
"the reason so many MMOGs follow the same paths... is that they were designed, built, and maintained by men." Of the respondents, Judith at Turbine Entertainment points out that "an audience that skews towards immature males will very likely have exaggeratedly female avatars for them to play with"
MMOG's seem to have more women players than any other online genre. They also seem feminized. I'm sure some people won't like that statement, but seriously, what other online games put such restrictions on killing/harming other players? What other online games make such a big deal over what your avatar looks like?
Take star wars galaxies for example, it's almost a barbie game online...You can be a dancer! Customize your clothes! Become a tailor or a chef! Only 1 in 500,000 of you will be Jedi though. YEY FUN! Is this what a typical teenage male wants to do? Give me a break.
As for the women characters being "exaggerated" aren't the men too? Maybe it's just that men don't (typically) have the same poor self-esteem when it comes to their body that many women do. I'd bet that 99/100ths of the men play avatars that have bodies they could never have, even if they tried.
I hope game developers don't take this seriously. I don't want to log on to matrix online and have to chose between my avatar looking like Rosie O'Donald, Opera, or Ms. Cleo.
The purpose of tenure is to ensure freedom of speech.
Tenure isn't needed for this. It is scary how freedom of speech has truely been taken away from us. Not just teachers, but workers everywhere. Sure, say whatever you want but if you offend SOMEONE you will lose your job.
I've found most professors use tenure as a shield to do whatever they want, including forcing their views or opinions on students instead of encouraging freedom of thought or respecting people with different opinions. Tenure doesn't help freedom of speech, it harms it.
RPGs must be divided into two categories before your statement rings true. Open-ended freeform RPGs are better on a PC. Daggerfall, and Morrowind are two good examples of this. Plot-driven RPGs are better on the console, or at least more popular. The Final Fantasy series, and a variety of others, who lead you along the plot, are more popular on the console.
I would say that the Final Fantasy series is an exception to the rule in recent years (ie FF7 and on). PC RPG's have evolved to the point where they are mostly open-ended with different storylines to follow, but when the PC was following the "Plot-Driven" RPG type it was dominating RPG games at that type of RPG also. (The Ultima series for example).
I'm not saying that there aren't good RPG games on the consoles (I've enjoyed many of them), or that there can't be. I just think if the consoles want to get into online gaming and try for mainstream appeal, they need to do what they do best. Making another MMORPG isn't a compelling reason to use a console to play online. A MMO GTA might be. They should go after a game genre that hasn't been put online yet, or hasn't been done well online yet.
Idiot, the difference in price is between a computer and a console. Wow are you stupid. As for the rest of that drivel, it's a good thing you posted anonymously so you can save your precious karma.
As usual, you show your stupidity. I didn't post it under my username so you would see it. I don't worry about my karma much, sorry. Also, if you weren't a moron you would realize most people who would play a console online have an ISP already, along with a PC so the price difference isn't a factor.
Why don't you go back to trolling the liberals like you do in your journal. You might be a bit better suited for that, because obviously you don't know what you are talking about here. Actually, your arguments in your journal are pretty weak also and your logic is flawed. I'm betting you are really a liberal who uses this account for trolling. No one can really be as stupid as you come across from your posts.
One: People who really get off on acting like complete jerks, ruining your gameplay experience with abusive behavior and cheating. These are the punks who 'pull' on Capcom vs. SNK 2 (quitting the game at the last possible second, thus giving you BOTH a loss in the rankings) and trash-talk endlessly
The 'pulling' problem was something microsoft should have taken care of. CvS2 on x-box was botched with the EO mode, and the way they handled pulls and rankings. I played with my mic on for the first day or two, but found no one ever had anything good to say so I would just turn it off.
As for the matchmaking problem, you are right it would be a lot better if online games had some type of matchmaking system, or at least told you how many hours the other guy has played. It wasn't too bad in CvS2, but there are plenty of games that have little to no ranking system whatsoever.
Calling you ignorant isn't really an insult to you. Ignorance just means you lack some bit of information.
Like you did when replying to me?
When you make statements like, "The consoles have to stop trying to beat the PC at what the PC does well and offer console players an experence they can't find on the PC or anywhere else." it shows that you are ignorant of the fact that online sports games are doing so well.
Re-read the sentence. I said, an experence that can't be found on the PC. Like I said before you can play madden 2004 on the PC. You keep ignoring that fact like it doesn't exist. I also clearly said OTHER than sports titles the consoles haven't done well online. Go back and re-read my first post. Have you read the whole thing yet? Are you still working on it?
And when I said exclusively playable online, I was of course referring to the consoles. exclusively -[adv] without any others being included or involved.
If it's available on the PC, it's not exclusive to the consoles, which is what I was talking about it my first post. It's obvious from your posting history that you are a borderline troll, and not even a very good one. Do everyone a favor, stop posting on slashdot and take an english course.
The author of the article and you appear to both be ignorant of the widespread appeal of EA's Madden 2004, NCAA Football 2004, and the expected appeal of the rest of their sports line - exclusively playable online using a PS2.
Try re-reading my post, I said OTHER than sports games the consoles haven't released anything that is exclusive to the genres the consoles traditionally do well with. Also, Madden 2004 isn't "exclusively playable online with PS2" you can go online and play with the PC version as well.
The silly "ignorant" name calling isn't needed either, especially if you aren't going to read someones post before pressing reply.
There aren't any killer broadband titles for the consoles which appeal to console gamers, which is why online gaming hasn't taken off yet on the consoles.
Traditionally, the PC has been good in certain genres of games that translate well to multiplayer action. RPG's, FPS, RTS, and Simulation games are usually better on the PC than on the console.
Consoles are usually have better sports games, adventure/platform games, and fighting games.
So you would think that the consoles would take the games they are good at, and try to put them online. With the exception of sports games, the other two genres haven't been well represented. When they were done (ie, Capcom vs SNK EO) they were done poorly.
When you look at what the consoles have focused on, they have taken online games that are better on the PC (ie, FPS games) and tried to make them work on consoles. I saw no reason to play halo, even though I have x-box live because I'd rather play a FPS on the PC with a mouse and keyboard. Plus I knew I could just wait for the PC version while I played UT2003, UT, CS, etc. If the consoles want to get people to play online, they need to focus on what they are good at. Getting GTA online would have been big for sony playstation, as was discussed here
I would venture to say, most people that have x-box live or a ps2 online adapter are also PC gamers, or have the ability to play PC games online if they want to. The consoles have to stop trying to beat the PC at what the PC does well and offer console players an experence they can't find on the PC or anywhere else.
if there is a drug you /should/ be taking every day, there should also be a lifestyle change that should reflect that....
;)
Why is that? I have to take Allegra everyday for allergies. Even a mega-overdose wouldn't kill me. I read overdose information + look up online all the meds I get prescribed before I take them, and I've found quite a few are like that. Your "lifestyle change" theory is beyond me. I would also be willing to bet, more people die a year due to human error when dosing themselves, then would die from a chip breaking/going haywire inside them.
You are just worried about your parents losing their jobs, right?
for everyone who replied like I was serious (which I'm not), and the mods who modded me "flamebait" it was a joke, check my user name...:P
If there were a cop simulation, it might be about as much fun as running through the code of a C program. Why? One of the great things about GTA series is the planning you did in the missions. What car to use, how exactly to do it, etc. The vast majority of cops have something called procedure. Rather than creatively solving your problems, you "do it by the book". If you wish to deviate, you need to call headquarters and are more often given orders than a blank check to decide what to do. Who wants to make a game about following procedure?
Yeah those police quest games back in the day didn't sell at all. I wonder why they made like 6-7 sequals if they were so boring an nobody liked them?
Real programmers use Java. PHP is total garbage, as is every other programming langauge. Ok, maybe I'm a little biased.