You actually ignored the weaker parts of my argument.

If a history of violence against military and civilian targets is your grounds for banning an organisation, does that mean you want the Republican party banned for attacking a civilian news organisation, or military targets? How about the Democratic Party for essentially the same thing?

Who gets to choose when violence is justified?

Should the U.S. get to choose for everybody, including the 95.5% of the world population who are not U.S. citizens?

Claiming that an organisation is non-violent is not sufficient to prove innocence. It is quite possible to get a lengthy stay in prison in the U.S. for non-violent activities, such as online gaming, and in fact although I take the statistic with a grain of salt I have seen it claimed that 60% of U.S. prisoners are in prison for non-violent reasons. The number of U.S. prisoners (730 per 100,000) is in fact far higher than Chinese prisoners (121 per 100,000) by such a large percentage that the total prison population in the U.S. is higher than China despite having only about one third the total population (I hasten to point out that things have improved slightly since 2008, but my point stands).

BTW, don't get the idea that I have anything against the U.S., because I don't. I just don't accept that it is the bastion of freedom and that China is the evil empire.

DOTA stands for Defense of the Ancients. It was originally a Warcraft 3 mod that has been remade by Valve into it's own stand alone game, now called DOTA2. It's technically still in Beta despite this being the second year they've had the International tournament with the $1 million prize to the top team.

The team who is winning is "Na Vi". This clip shows their opponent "iG" sweeping around to pull off what is called a "smoke gank" and which they seem to have set up perfectly. However one character on Na Vi's team is able to use one of his abilities to disable most of the other team giving his teammate time to steal a key ability from the other team and turn around a fight that should have been devastating.

It's a little hard to explain and even harder to tell what is going on if you don't know anything about the game. But what you should know is that it was an amazing turn around at a crucial moment on one of esports' biggest stages. It would be kinda like intercepting a touchdown pass from your opponent to then run it back for your own score in American football. Perhaps something like one or two goals in stoppage time to comeback and win a football(soccer) game.

This post has gone on far too long, check out Dota2 if you're interested in finding an excellent team oriented PC online game.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^tsquire1:
The fact that a comment critiquing rape culture gets downvoted, and one that promotes rape culture gets up voted, reveals a heavy nerdbro tendency on this site that is really quite sick.
No, I dont care if it is 'just a joke'. You infantile nethipsters that make these comments never have to worry about being raped, never have to worry about what they wear walking down the street and if it will promote 'catcalls'. You don't have to worry about facing violence by going out at night or, if you do get sexually assaulted, have to worry about who will even believe you.
Plainly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
That is why it is funny to you. Because you are that removed from reality. Your laughter is a privileged laughter. Your cynicism is anti-human.
>> ^Hybrid:
You wouldn't be saying that 30 mins after I put some Rohypnol in your drink.

I upvoted your comment because it was so passionately yet eloquently stated. But you might want to have a look at this vid for a different take on things (from the 6:00 mark to the end is particularly relevant).
I completely understand where you're coming from--as someone whose close friend was the victim of rape, I am always appalled when playing online games and teen-something kids joke about "raping" their opponents or "getting raped" in the game, seemingly trivializing the act. I eventually realized they were so carefree about the use of the term precisely for the reasons you stated in your post.
Even though I'm still disgusted by it, I eventually got some perspective and realized it was highly unlikely any of them would condone an actual rape in real life. They weren't promoting a culture of rape--they were using hyperbole for comedic effect. I don't find it funny, but it seems rather authoritarian of me to insist that others not find it funny either (again, watch the end of that vid I linked to above).


Great comment. I hear that a lot when gaming but for me it's like the use of the word "gay" to mean something lame. Anyway see that episode of South Park for more details

>> ^tsquire1:

The fact that a comment critiquing rape culture gets downvoted, and one that promotes rape culture gets up voted, reveals a heavy nerdbro tendency on this site that is really quite sick.
No, I dont care if it is 'just a joke'. You infantile nethipsters that make these comments never have to worry about being raped, never have to worry about what they wear walking down the street and if it will promote 'catcalls'. You don't have to worry about facing violence by going out at night or, if you do get sexually assaulted, have to worry about who will even believe you.
Plainly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
That is why it is funny to you. Because you are that removed from reality. Your laughter is a privileged laughter. Your cynicism is anti-human.
>> ^Hybrid:
You wouldn't be saying that 30 mins after I put some Rohypnol in your drink.


I upvoted your comment because it was so passionately yet eloquently stated. But you might want to have a look at this vid for a different take on things (from the 6:00 mark to the end is particularly relevant).

I completely understand where you're coming from--as someone whose close friend was the victim of rape, I am always appalled when playing online games and teen-something kids joke about "raping" their opponents or "getting raped" in the game, seemingly trivializing the act. I eventually realized they were so carefree about the use of the term precisely for the reasons you stated in your post.

Even though I'm still disgusted by it, I eventually got some perspective and realized it was highly unlikely any of them would condone an actual rape in real life. They weren't promoting a culture of rape--they were using hyperbole for comedic effect. I don't find it funny, but it seems rather authoritarian of me to insist that others not find it funny either (again, watch the end of that vid I linked to above).

"fuck you newb"

....said the dead guy. <--my favorite retort in online games

Can you really understand the financial system? I mean the people playing and losing in it never seemed to quite understand it.

More and more I hear about it, I tend to believe the financial system behaves however makes them as much money as possible until it doesn't. And they may know it for the period of which they exploited it, but when it changes from the known to the unknown is what's concerning to everyone else. Too much relies on financial stuff, but financial stuff is all numbers in the nebulous environment until you can cash them out for stuff you can put your hands.

It seems to have a lot in common with online gaming, while you control what happens to your "stuff", you don't really ever own it until you can bring it into the "real world" via cashout or whatever.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

.04 light seconds - that's why I can't play real-time online games on US servers.

If a living Prothean isn't "HIGHLY significant" to the story, then someone dropped the ball. The direction Bioware has been going in quality recently is a factor. Dragon Age 2 was a half-hearted sequel that had a "B-Team" quality to it. The Old Republic is just as disappointing as the movie prequels. So yes, this blatant money grab has absolutely compounded my lack of faith in ME3 being a good game.

As for Origin, EA lost my trust in providing a good service back with EA Downloader and its limited time to download. Let's not forget their several online game servers that it has shut-off.>> ^CrushBug:

>> ^HugeJerk:
However, ME3 is looking like it will be a total let down. Requiring their online service for the PC version, tacking DLC onto everything remotely associated with the series (Figurines and Art Books), as well as having day-one DLC that costs $10 and unlocks a character that should be HIGHLY significant to the storyline. If the demo for ME3 is any indication, they've dropped the ball on bothering to animate facial expressions as well.

There is a lot of misinformation around these items. Much like Steam, the Origin service can be run in offline mode, so you don't need to be online to play, except for the initial game activation, just like ME2, so not much has changed there.
The DLC thing has been confusing. Those physical goods do not include main game, singleplayer DLC. What is included is a multiplayer-only unlock. A little bit of free microcontent as a "reward" for buying and registering your ME3 physical statue and such. None of these items are for main game. The $870 comment is an overstatement and misleading.
We have had DLC available on the first day for our past 3 games. You are assuming that it is "HIGHLY significant", but you can play and complete the game with or without it, much like Kasumi from ME2. The only decision you have to make, is it worth your $10. If you don't think so, then don't purchase it. Wait for some reviews or talk to trusted friends that have it and get their opinion. Don't let the Omnidirectional Internet Rage Machine guide you .
And regardless of the above, what it comes down to is the story. If you enjoyed the story in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2, then Mass Effect 3 is going to blow your mind. It is simply the finest story-based game we have released. If you are invested in your Mass Effect characters and companions like I am (~255 hour played in ME2 over 8 playthroughs) then everything is there for you. All those stories and conflicts across the galaxy from the past 2 games all come to a head while your are dealing with the Reaper invasion. Half-way through the game, I was an emotional wreck. So much had happened. I was so thrilled to go off and do a side quest of pure combat, just to blow off some steam.
If you are unsure about the game, try the demo or wait for the reviews. If you like the Mass Effect world and games, then this is the game you have been waiting for.
Keelah Se'lai

@mentality

I absolutely LOVE list comments! Anda here we gooooo....!

"I'll bite."

You'll have to stop barking first.

"1. Online-only: Yup."

Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3. The rest of this list is just icing. There is simply no reason whatsoever to require a persistent online connection for single player, at least from the player's perspective.

"2. Overly-monetized: So was Diablo 2. Now those who want to spend money don't have to go to sketchy websites."

Huh? Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. Some items were only available in the online game, but the player still had the choice whether to participate or not, and I didn't. In D3, spending real money is an integral part of the game. Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending.

The inclusion of the AH turns everybody into an open wallet that can be manipulated. How? Say Blizzard's stats show a player sells the majority of his uniques in the AH. Up his unique drops. Make more money when he sells in the AH. How about giving players more drops of valuable items they already possess? More duplicates, more selling in AH, more profit for Blizzard. Need more storage space in your stash? Unfortunately, Blizzard just made it smaller in the beta. Luckily, you'll be able to buy more space in the AH. Want a pet to pick up all your gold for you? Oops! Removed, but no doubt you'll soon be able to buy one in the AH.

The whole monetizing thing is offensive to me as a PC gamer and former Blizzard fan. You wanna be a chump? Go for it. Buy yourself some Ancient Armor of Win and have a blast.

"3. Dumbed down: nope. With the skill rune system and the crafting, as well as the new skill bar, there's going to be more depth in D3."

Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Everything is being nerfed to encourage participation in the AH. Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.

"4. Linear: nope. Still randomized dungeons and quests."

SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.

"5. Cartoony: Nope. The beta is anything but cartoony. I'd say D2 was way more cartoony with its rainbow pantheon of monsters."

Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking. Again though, doesn't matter. Very low on my list of issues, if it's there at all. I mainly just needed an adjective.

"Your loss."

Please edit your videos before you hit "submit new comment". The original gets immediately sent to me in it's entirety via email notification. Your original comment of...

"Your loss and good riddance."

...sounds pretty fanboy-ey and I can see why you wouldn't want people to see it. It explains alot. However... on the chance it was just a random typo and not an example of your linear thinking, I'll just say this...

It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.

>> ^Peroxide:

Cell phones are immoral, from the slave labor mining of precious metals to the sweat shop assembly, to the toxic waste shipped back to china.
Your sentiments are cliche and your herd mentality a detriment to the global herd.

Cell phones are not immoral. Slave labor mining, sweat shop assembly and toxic waste pollution are definitely immoral, but don't confuse the ends with the means. Our desire for cell phones may not justify the immoral actions used to produce them, but that doesn't mean the cell phones themselves or our desire to use them, is wrong.

As for the poem, technology is amoral. It is a tool, which can be used to enslave or enhance your life. Would he have said the same thing about the printing press?

I have acquired knowledge, discovered art and laughed at the world (and yes those things have equal value) on this site alone, and that means the internet makes my life better. I have had visceral, collaborative, experiences in online games I could never have in real life (at least, until the zombie apocalypse hits).

But it's a part of my life, not the whole. Guitar hero doesn't compare to actually playing guitar. SSX has none of "oh crap, I've overcooked this and now I'm really gonna hurt" adrenaline rush of actually snowboarding. As much as I love taking down a room of thugs in Arkham Aslyum, it's a pale shadow of the intricacy of martial arts.

So yeah, take what you want from the web, but go have a beer with some friends every now and then

>> ^braindonut:

Both the single player and the multiplayer are wonderful. I enjoyed the single player campaign in BF3 FAR more than the last two Modern Warfare games. (Didn't even finish Black Ops and I have no plans on buying MW3...)
Zero Punctuation is hate packaged as comedy. It's not actually a place to go for objective game reviews. The truth is, yes, BF3 has some flaws, but overall, there's a shitload of fun to be had and I feel sad for anyone who is so jaded and cynical that they couldn't find that fun.


Objective Game Reviews? How would you even do that?
Also: IMO Battlefield is BY FAR the best multiplayer-online-shooter out there. For me it's like a combination of CoD 1, Counter-Strike and Battlefield 1942. And this is the holy trinity of online-gaming - again if you ask me.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Nevermind the fact that Washington University, the school that created the Foldit program, is a public (that is to say, funded by the state; a.k.a. statist) institution.


Right, and I'm sure the researchers there are fantastic. Still, they opened the market to allow more people to work on what they themselves and others weren't able to succeed at.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Nevermind the fact that healthcare, up until very recently, has been privatized (excluding medicare and medicaid) for a substantial time now; yet the lifetime cost of HIV medications and treatment is roughly $385,000.


And available only from big pharma. And that's thanks to government regulations. Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine privately and offered it without patent. If he were to bring the same drug to market today by FDA restrictions he'd have to pay millions.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Shouldn't free market generic meds have landed in your local Wally World for $5 a month by now? Why is the free market dictating these insane prices where how much you can pay is directly relational to how long you get to live.


The pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated. I think you're erroneously conflating corporatism with free market.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Now, as we know, if the market was not worthy, pharmaceutical businessmen would not get involved with it and essentially let the project die. The logical solution to these huge dilemmas in cost then is to create a larger customer base. All they need now is a furtive way to deliver the virus to a sect of the population that is either expendable and large or rich and small.


Again, you're claiming the current market is free. If it was, people like Salk could enter and compete (much like the gamers in the article above) without retribution from government. What you have today is a limited amount of pharma companies that can compete in the market, and because there's less competition, you have higher prices.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I don't see where the "market" part comes in. Just the "free" part.


The market is just a system of exchange. Look at my example of Salk above. He developed and released a cure to polio, but today the restrictions on the market makes this kind of charitable action illegal. But in regards to the article specifically, Wash. Univ. opened their system of exchange and asked the online gaming community to help in figuring out a complex structure of an AIDS protein. The exchange was charitable. That's the free market.

Now if there was a regulation against this sort of thing because the online gamers weren't "licensed" for instance, then that would be a restrictive market. Right?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chtv, xbox, online gaming, flame' to 'chtv, xbox girls, online gaming, flame, xbox live, sexual harassment' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Xbox, girls, revenge' to 'Xbox girls, revenge, online gaming, xbox live, sexual harassment' - edited by xxovercastxx