1
General Gaming / RE: I want my $35
« on: November 11, 2007, 04:58:25 AM »
Who on earth is offended by the hypothetical titties other people might be able to see?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: jasonditzQuote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
They don't come right out and say it, but they imply it a lot, and in particular they bring up all of the old FUD arguments: Wii can't last very long, people will get tired of motion control, what will happen when HD becomes popular...etc. I guess they're just so invested in high technology that they want to believe those tired old claims, but for a second there I was beginning to wonder if the article was sponsored by Sony or Microsoft.
I have to say, as far as what they're done with it so far, I am starting to get a little tired of motion control. Madden was neat in some parts but inexcusably sloppy in other parts (like its virtually impossible to rile up the crowd without accidentally calling defensive audibles)... ditto for Tiger Woods. A lot of the games use gestures that don't make any sense, and responsiveness isn't always all it could be.
Wait the examples you are giving are from EA games?
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
They don't come right out and say it, but they imply it a lot, and in particular they bring up all of the old FUD arguments: Wii can't last very long, people will get tired of motion control, what will happen when HD becomes popular...etc. I guess they're just so invested in high technology that they want to believe those tired old claims, but for a second there I was beginning to wonder if the article was sponsored by Sony or Microsoft.
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Every Walmart I've been in has the game sorted by system then alphabetically. (?)
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBobQuote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
I never said they were violent extremists, I said that they behave in much the same way PETA does, which is to say they've all got something for which either they are willing to use violence or for which they'd cheer someone else on in the use of violence.
You think 99% of the population behaves in the same way PETA does.... by planting explosives and killing innocent people because they disagree with them?
Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
And yet Jason still does not provide citation for his so called factual numbers.
Still waiting on some sources there buddy.
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
Anywhoo, I think jason is being extremist when it comes to defining the nature of people. Just because you're not a pacifist doesn't mean you're a violent extremist. It's not an issue of black or white.
Quote
Originally posted by: UERD
But those statistics don't mean a thing. If anything, there were far more people adamant against any US war involvement on December 6, 1941, than on December 8, 1941 (a day after the attack on Pearl Harbor). Maybe 1% of the US population consists of dedicated pacifists, but out of that remaining 99% there is a big, big chunk that would only agree to the military using force for the purpose of defending the nation, or use of deadly force by police in situations where innocent life is at risk.
And while any use of violence is an unappetizing prospect, the prospect of doing nothing and just allowing one's livelihood or even life taken from them without any sort of resistance is even more unpalatable. So your '99%' assertion is a straw man, designed to conjure images of masked murderers and depraved felons willing to hurt the innocent. A defensive war entails 'violence', but it is the kind of 'violence' that most people are (rightfully) willing to tolerate.