There are many, many multiplayer only games, and I'm not even talking about MMOs. Console games have lagged behind PC in terms of online connectivity, but with the success of PSN and Xbox Live, multiplayer has become much more prominent in the console-space, and will be even more relevant with the next generation. When you are playing the sequel to one of the historically greatest PC multiplayer only franchises, yes complaining about the singleplayer is like complaining about the salad at the steak restaurant.

And when 95% of your "reviews" focuses on why a game sucks, you are a "hater". It's hard to take someone's "opinions" seriously when their idea of game of the year is Saints Row 2.


>> ^Deano:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^Deano:
Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.

Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.
Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).

If it's fair game then I don't think the steak house analogy really applies. If on the other hand it was heavily hyped as MP with far less emphasis on SP then I can see where one might have cause for concern.
The thing is no publisher is ever going to market a game that just has multiplayer, even if for many dedicated fans that is what the game is really about. They still have to sell a game to everyone which includes people like me who will play the SP, maybe flirt with the MP for a short while then stop playing.

@A10anis

Agnosticism is an epistemological position of the uncertainty of knowledge of things. In other words, the nature of knowledge about God, or knowledge in general really, as many above have pointed out (I'm taking it you did read the nice chart above!). Theism or Atheism is a position, either knowingly or unknowing rejecting or accepting the idea of God; one can be explicitly or implicitly atheist (like all children not exposed to the idea are implicitly atheist). Agnostic Atheist is the most common position, but few people have complete understanding of all the concepts involved, or have their own private understandings of what they mean; making any unilateral criticism troublesome. As to the foundations of science and Mathematics, Kurt Gödel had had a great role to play in the destruction of what most peoples concept of certain systems are. And the o so smart Karl Popper ideas on falsifiability has thrown the antique notion of certain truth from science against the wall, in which modern Philosophers of Science, like Hilary Putnam have found intractable to solve, except to say that very little separates, currently, the foundations of science form the foundations of any other dabble of the imagination. Einstein talked about this as well, that wonderment is really the pursuit of all great scientists...not certainty.

As to my original claim, that science has truths it can not rectify, I leave it to better minds to explain the problems of induction. David Hume, Nelson Goodman, and Kurt Gödel drastically changed any view of certain knowledge from science and maths that I had. The untenable nature of the empirical evaluation of reality is just as uncertain as Abrahamic codifications being real.

I close with this, some of the greatest minds in the history of science and philosophy had no problem, nay, drew power from the deep richness they gathered from their faith. It drove them to the limits of the thoughts of their day, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing (who kept some vestibules of faith even after what happened to him), Georg Cantor, and countless others all had some "irrational" faith was more than just a ideal system of commands by some dead people, it drove them to greatness, and in many cases to rejection and madness of their "rational" peers. Georg Cantor, the father of the REAL infinite, died in a mental institution only to have his ideas lite a fire in the minds of the next generation of mathematicians.

It is my believe that we all want to have issue with x number of people, and make peace with y number. We elevate the slightest difference, or conversely, ignore a great flaw to peg this mark just right for us. Perhaps my y is just bigger than your x, or most peoples x as I find this debate I have is a common one; for tolerance, peace, and consideration. If you still think what I am saying is non-sense, then I guess we have nothing more to say to one another. I hope I cleared up my thoughts a bit more, I am not very good at communicating things that are more than just the average amount of esoteric.

I'd say it's even worse that they're allowed to have kids at all. Not that we can do anything about that other than trying to educate the next generation of future parents.

>> ^nanrod:

Aside from their treatment of their son the biggest problem is that people like his parents are allowed to vote.

well, this definitely seems a lot more real now, and if they can tackle animation, and physics properly, I hope the next generation of consoles will use this tech... it would be amazing.

@gorillaman

Yes. We get it. You're a misanthrope. Woe is the planet for all the stupidity of humanity.

Now back to the main point.

Maternity leave was implemented to ensure that the offspring of workers are healthy and happy.

You know, time and money spent now to ensure the next generation isn't dumber and poorer than the previous.

But you wouldn't understand that concept or give a damn since you're too busy wankin' your angsty misanthropic hipster boner.

Maybe you can help humanity out with the whole "babies are dumb and useless" thing if you..

went back in time and gave your mother an abortion. =]

http://lineboil.com/2009/03/star-trek-the-next-generation-beams-into-family-guy/ is the one, but no embedded code.

I agree with everything you just wrote.

The only thing that I would point out is the media is biased as Jon Stewart put it to be lazy, and to generate conflict, but it will spin what is going on in society either conservative or liberal to get out of real reporting, and to be sensational. Anything they can do to get people to consume said media is fair game. That laziness falls on both sides of the political spectrum media wide. And it doesn't help when society tunes out when the story isn't something that elicits an emotional response, or doesn't have a simple lesson or solution. Nuance and complexity is something most Americans abhor.

Case in point, when is the last time you saw something on the news that showed how many IT jobs are given to people with work visas, and compare that to how many people are graduating college with computer science degrees to illustrate that portion of outsourcing? I don't think I've ever seen that presented in the news. That point is very hard to pin as conservative or liberal because solutions to remedy it could come from both parties. And there's no easily identified villian, either. So instead, let's paint the big bad evil corporations for outsourcing in general because that's easy to report on, throw some basic generalized stats up about number of jobs outsourced, show corporate profits increasing, and do people love to consume that kind of story. I see that left and right in IT. I know friends who see it left and right in other sections of the economy like bioengineering, etc. But it never gets reported on. These are the jobs and sectors that will be growing in the modern economy, and we as a nation are doing a poor job preparing the next generations to succeed in them, no question about it.

Or conversely, if you love you some Fox News, let's focus on the fact that there's this agency called Planned Parenthood, that is in part funded by federal tax dollars, and it performs abortions! OMG! This must be this huge problem! Only, if you're a sane individual, you'd normally then want to know how much of this is going on, and you quickly realize the number of abortions that are performed in these facilities is under 100 annually nationwide, and it's dubious at best if federal dollars actually paid for any of those procedures. But finding those statistics is either purposefully omitted to sensationalize and stir up conflict, or done so out of sheer laziness. But conservative Americans eat that stuff up, because it's easy for them to follow, clearly identifiable villians, and fits their ideological narrative of the US crumbling from disregarding "traditional values". The facts of course clearly show this isn't a significant problem.

Back to the housing crisis, etc, the truth is there's blame to go around with the banks, government, and consumers. I also have a friend who took on a mortgage he shouldn't have. Got an 80/20, he's a single income earner, wife is in the process of getting a degree in nursing, they have two kids. In 2006, they got this big massive house in a brand new neighborhood. It's the American dream. Now, it's not like this guy is dumb. He took out $400,000 mortgages (80/20), very high interest, etc. on a single income, knowing full well his wife was going to school, and he didn't have an emergency fund to speak of.

I don't care what he was told by the lenders and real estate agent - he had no one to blame but himself in the end. He had a perfectly good house in a good neighborhood already. He just bought a new car as well. He had credit card debt. He wasn't putting much money away for retirement either. There's nothing anyone can say but "it's your fault" when the economy tanked in 2008, we both worked for the same company, and they cut our salaries to avoid layoffs. I'd have been sympathetic if he were doing the basics right, had a good emergency fund, could put a good 20% down for the mortgage, had no credit card debt, etc., then got caught later despite his best efforts, or lacked the mental capability to know he was walking into a potential economic deathtrap. But he wasn't putting forth anywhere close to a best effort financially speaking. When the same thing happened to me, I cut back on paying my mortgage off early, and sat on a six months emergency fund if the layoff ever came, and increased my retirement contributions when the market tanked to jumpstart it when the market would inevitably rebounded. There was never a sleepless night.

He's in better shape now, we got our salaries put back, and what did he do? Took that several year "postponed" trip to Disneyworld with the wife and kids, put off contributing to the reinstituted 401k, never has started an IRA for him or his wife, no college fund for the kids, only has one month emergency fund, although he has reduced his credit card balances.

I wouldn't pretend to know which is worse in the US - predatory lending and other abuses by businesses against consumers, or a complete lack of personal responsibility. But I know this - there's plenty of both, but you certainly don't hear it's both from pretty much any media outlet.

I remember as far back as 1993 having a detailed discussion with some space scientists about the shuttle. Even then everyone whose opinion mattered recognized that it was very out of date. I'd rather we have a replacement on the ground right now but sometimes you have to just die to make way for the next generation. Whatever that is I hope it's as cool as the shuttle.

Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.

Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.

I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation* so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.

*edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.

>> ^Farhad2000:

Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

>> ^Bruti79:

I've always wondered, what's the difference between the F-22 and the F-35?
They look pretty similar, is it all an internal difference?


The 22 is more of a 15 replacement, a complete all around air superiority plane. The 35 is more of a 16 replacement, nimble, single engine combat fighter/multirole. The 22's life cycle is pretty much done for because of funding...it will never be a true 15 replacement. The 35 will be the bread and butter until the next generation of planes, or so it seems.

Moving slow conserves energy. Sloths mostly hang out in trees eating leaves so they have some protection in their natural habitat. Survival of the fittest means able to survive and pass along your genes to the next generation. The fact that sloths are so well suited to a particular environment and lifestyle should tell you a lot about evolution and survival of the fittest. Fittest can mean just about anything. It all depends on the environmental and cultural situation that a species finds itself in.

I laughed.

>> ^residue:

mmmm... chochup icing
>> ^quantumushroom:
These unimaginative parodies are a disgrace. Pr0n has a time and place. It no more belongs in the mainstream than the ketchup in your fridge belongs with the chocolate icing.

mmmm... chochup icing

>> ^quantumushroom:

These unimaginative parodies are a disgrace. Pr0n has a time and place. It no more belongs in the mainstream than the ketchup in your fridge belongs with the chocolate icing.

Your video, Star Trek: The Next Generation: A XXX Parody [SFW trailer], has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 21 Badge!