You know, I can tell you that the fundamental thing that comes to mind about Daikatana was that it was entirely forgettable. I've been an avid gamer since BEFORE the Commodore 64, I've played the greats and I think back to games which were contemporaries of Daikatana, say Deus Ex and I can tell you every last detail about that game. Now, if you ask me about Planescape: Torment, another game that predates Daikatana, I can go on and on about why that game was amazing. Despite having played through all of Daikatana, all I have in my mind is the vague impression of a horribly put together game, poor (and arguably racist) voice acting, terribly outdated graphics for when it was released, drab design, unimaginative writing and a lot of broken promises.

What I mean by that last part was that there was a LOT that was promised in the development of the game that never happened. What was it? I can't remember worth a damn and that's the point. It was a minor blip that didn't live up to 1/10th of what John Romero promised and it certainly didn't make me his bitch.

I get what you are trying to say about Duke though. Hell, I even agree that it is something we NEED to play. But after watching videos and reviews, I really don't think it is a fluke that it is coming in at 40/50% reviews (at best). Like I said in another post, that moment where they compare Duke to that annoying uncle you thought was hilarious when you were 8, but now just see as sad and really unimaginative.

Again, I'll stand by Gearbox as well. We all wanted to see this mess and they did the work to bring it to us.

As for feeling like Mr. Grumpypants, no worries, I think DNF has made us ALL Mr. Grumpypants this week.

>> ^grahamslam:

>> ^ponceleon:
Sorry Graham, but you had me until you defended Daikatana... Daikatana was horrible horrible horrible. In every way possible. Patch or no patch it was an embarrassment.
I will play DNF on my PC, but I'm going to wait till the price comes down (which I would give 3-5 weeks). No way am I paying $50 for this, history or no...

Explain to me why Daikatana was horrible in your opinion?
Price for a game is a matter of economics, not a matter of how good the game is or is not which is why I hate when people rate it according to price. Sure price can be an indicator of value, but if duke was priced at 10 bucks, would it all of a sudden be a 10 out of 10 game? No, but you would be happier you got to play the game for less money. If you had millions in the bank, you would probably care less if you paid $50 or $20 for the game, you just want to know how damn good the game is.
I understand your intention was just to simply say the game doesn't interest you at full price. The rant was just directed at the idiots who score games low because they didn't like it being released at full price. I think I need some sleep, I'm being mr grumpy pants.

>> ^MaxWilder:

There is a lot of debate about helmets. Some claim there is no reduction in injury where helmets are mandatory. Some even claim that helmets increase certain risks. I can't find the video/article I recently saw, but you can see the controversy on the wikipedia page.


I have in the past been an avid bike rider and I know, through some aggressive field testing on hard pavement and wet streets that my helmet has protected my brain from doing street art.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.

...and yet if I read your comments correctly, I don't think you were exactly pleased with the process he went through before banning you.

As a libertarian, sure, you are deeply committed to the idea that dag is and must be considered our king because he's got the divine right of property, and the rest of us are merely his subjects who only are allowed here at his consent.

But that's different from whether you like what the king's doing at any given time.
>> ^blankfist:
We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.

I think it's all about the kind of atmosphere we want in the community. I think there's been a slide towards greater and greater hostility and incivility. That seems to be the gist of dag's original post, all the way at the top of the page, no?

I don't really want to see some reign of terror where we purge the roles of the sift, but I would like to see people getting time outs for lashing out at people.

As for democratic process, I'm just asking for a code of laws. It seems to me that you can't have "due process" until you write down what the laws are. Without that, it's always going to boil down to the king settling disputes directly.
>> ^blankfist:
I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.

Sounds good, but what constitutes an attack?

If I say I've fucking had it with you calling me a Nazi all the time, and hobble you for it, how exactly do we settle whether I've got a legitimate case or not? Make dag threaten to cut the baby in half?

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

For someone who is otherwise such a proponent of democratic principles and liberty I'm surprised that you would rather concentrate disciplinary powers in one person's hands.

And, yes, yes - I am the site owner so I could always come down and blow it all away, so we're just playing. I know. But, there would be a lot more social pressure on me not to interfere, if decisions were meted out fairly without favorotism by the Sift public in some kind of system.

I think I've shown my willingness to let self-rule flourish. And honestly, I'm fascinated by the idea of balancing technology and people to make a more equitable, self-managing community. (even if it's just in our little online niche)

>> ^blankfist:



@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.
We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.
I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.
We've been on a banning spree in the last two weeks or so, and it's not that some of the offenses weren't valid, it's just a bit reactionary to ban people outright. Especially when we're not asking for testimony before walking people off the plank. Hobble them first. Listen to them. Then decide on punishment.

@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.

We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.

I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.

We've been on a banning spree in the last two weeks or so, and it's not that some of the offenses weren't valid, it's just a bit reactionary to ban people outright. Especially when we're not asking for testimony before walking people off the plank. Hobble them first. Listen to them. Then decide on punishment.

@blankfist I'll be honest, I haven't been very careful not to. I will be from now on if you would just respond to the substance of what has been posted. As you might imagine, this isn't the only conversation I'm in over this ruling, provided here again for your convenience. In none of the conversations has someone purporting to be an avid supporter of this protest been able to highlight anything specific in that ruling which they oppose. I actually took the time to read the ruling in light of the protests, and found very little objectionable about it. That is, I'm trying to understand the grievances of the protesters, with genuine interest, but even their supporters can't explain them to me.

I repeatedly hear misinformation which I'd rather wasn't used in the debate, because it shows a disregard for the facts. For instance, that there is a law "against dancing in the memorial." That's ridiculous, of course no such law exists. There is a law against organized demonstration in the memorial. There's as much a law against candlelight vigils in that space as there is against "dancing quietly, at midnight, with 17 like minded individuals." You just aren't allowed to co-opt that space for political purposes, period. The lawsuit filed by Ms. Oberwetter asserted that their right to do so was protected under the first amendment. The ruling (which is only as long, and detailed as it is in homage to Mr. Jefferson) clearly explained why it is not.

I don't want to gang up on you. I want to understand this, and make people think.

>> ^smooman:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^owatadorkiam:
no processing on the vocals....she seems to still hit all the right notes...I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound that bad.

I didn't know the term "tone-deaf" described a real thing...but it does. And you suffer from it.

owatadorkiam is not tone deaf. I'm a vocalist (yes I was paid to do it for a living at one time in my life) and sorry to say I didn't hear any sour notes. Granted she's no virtuoso, but she's not singing off key at all. What I expected to hear was horribly out of tune singing and heard nothing of the sort. And yes, I really wanted to hear her choke.

yes, he most certainly is, and it would appear you are as well. an avid musician myself, this made me cringe....BUT went ahead and had my mother, a pianist and classically trained vocalist for over 40 years, my brother, a professionally trained vocalist and avid musician (you should here his Faithfully by journey, hit it at karaoke this last weekend and he fucking OWNED it), and my good friend Mandy, a vocalist and musician by hobby who trained under one of Jessica Simpsons former vocal coaches.....
and they unanimously agreed that she fucking sucks. and not just the talky verses (cuz i know thats kind of her unique stlye) but the chorus and prechorus (especially the prechorus)
you didnt hear any sour notes? that sentence alone condemns you as tonedeaf. It wasnt chock full of em but there were PLENTY to choose from.
what i will say is this: she is certainly trained, she can carry a tune (sort of), but she is mediocre at best
but thats the music industry for you. me and my brother have been in bands playing locally trying to get exposure since we were in high school........and justin fucking beiber gets a multi million contract?
it has little to nothing to do with how talented or unique you are and everything to do with one of two things: luck/right place right time, or knowing the right people


As an avid musician myself, your post reeks of pretentiousness and unwarranted self-importance, regardless of the sporadic legitimacy of your comments.

And I'm a guy who has to actively struggle against being pretentious and exhibiting unwarranted self-importance. Tone it down, bro.

oh goodie! it's a pissing contest. i wonder who has the biggest dick????

secretly, i've always suspected that it was duckman. whip em out boys, let bea settle this.


>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^smooman:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^owatadorkiam:
no processing on the vocals....she seems to still hit all the right notes...I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound that bad.

I didn't know the term "tone-deaf" described a real thing...but it does. And you suffer from it.

owatadorkiam is not tone deaf. I'm a vocalist (yes I was paid to do it for a living at one time in my life) and sorry to say I didn't hear any sour notes. Granted she's no virtuoso, but she's not singing off key at all. What I expected to hear was horribly out of tune singing and heard nothing of the sort. And yes, I really wanted to hear her choke.

yes, he most certainly is, and it would appear you are as well. an avid musician myself, this made me cringe....BUT went ahead and had my mother, a pianist and classically trained vocalist for over 40 years, my brother, a professionally trained vocalist and avid musician (you should here his Faithfully by journey, hit it at karaoke this last weekend and he fucking OWNED it), and my good friend Mandy, a vocalist and musician by hobby who trained under one of Jessica Simpsons former vocal coaches.....
and they unanimously agreed that she fucking sucks. and not just the talky verses (cuz i know thats kind of her unique stlye) but the chorus and prechorus (especially the prechorus)
you didnt hear any sour notes? that sentence alone condemns you as tonedeaf. It wasnt chock full of em but there were PLENTY to choose from.
what i will say is this: she is certainly trained, she can carry a tune (sort of), but she is mediocre at best
but thats the music industry for you. me and my brother have been in bands playing locally trying to get exposure since we were in high school........and justin fucking beiber gets a multi million contract?
it has little to nothing to do with how talented or unique you are and everything to do with one of two things: luck/right place right time, or knowing the right people

"My musician friends can beat up your musician friends!!! Derp derp!"
Look, I also used to sing "Faithfully", "Lights", "Separate Ways" along with "I want to Know What Love Is" (Foreigner), some Skid Row, Motley Crue, Nirvana, Def Leppard, Van Hagar, Van Halen, etc, etc. and many other songs from many other bands in my bands. I sang 6 nights a week 5 hours a night in one of the highest paid bands on the bar circuit at the time. I was told on a nightly basis that I covered the songs we played live better than the most of the original artists in a lot of cases. But yeah, whatever you say, I'm tone deaf. LOL I have been singing in bands since I was 17 and I'm 47 now. I'm pretty sure that alone qualifies me to have an opinion on her singing skills. So please don't try to lecture me on my ears, or singing ability.
My question is; Where exactly did I say she didn't suck? What part of me saying, "What I expected to hear was horribly out of tune singing" and "I really wanted her to choke" didn't you understand? Yes, I heard no sour notes. At least not any that made me cringe. Do I really have to explain my comment to that extent for you to comprehend what I was saying?
Sorry your brother couldn't make the grade. Life is tough, huh? And I'm glad he "fucking OWNED it" in a karaoke bar. (seriously? LOL) Sounds like you have a bunch of sour grapes to me. Period.

>> ^smooman:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^owatadorkiam:
no processing on the vocals....she seems to still hit all the right notes...I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound that bad.

I didn't know the term "tone-deaf" described a real thing...but it does. And you suffer from it.

owatadorkiam is not tone deaf. I'm a vocalist (yes I was paid to do it for a living at one time in my life) and sorry to say I didn't hear any sour notes. Granted she's no virtuoso, but she's not singing off key at all. What I expected to hear was horribly out of tune singing and heard nothing of the sort. And yes, I really wanted to hear her choke.

yes, he most certainly is, and it would appear you are as well. an avid musician myself, this made me cringe....BUT went ahead and had my mother, a pianist and classically trained vocalist for over 40 years, my brother, a professionally trained vocalist and avid musician (you should here his Faithfully by journey, hit it at karaoke this last weekend and he fucking OWNED it), and my good friend Mandy, a vocalist and musician by hobby who trained under one of Jessica Simpsons former vocal coaches.....
and they unanimously agreed that she fucking sucks. and not just the talky verses (cuz i know thats kind of her unique stlye) but the chorus and prechorus (especially the prechorus)
you didnt hear any sour notes? that sentence alone condemns you as tonedeaf. It wasnt chock full of em but there were PLENTY to choose from.
what i will say is this: she is certainly trained, she can carry a tune (sort of), but she is mediocre at best
but thats the music industry for you. me and my brother have been in bands playing locally trying to get exposure since we were in high school........and justin fucking beiber gets a multi million contract?
it has little to nothing to do with how talented or unique you are and everything to do with one of two things: luck/right place right time, or knowing the right people


"My musician friends can beat up your musician friends!!! Derp derp!"

Look, I also used to sing "Faithfully", "Lights", "Separate Ways" along with "I want to Know What Love Is" (Foreigner), some Skid Row, Motley Crue, Nirvana, Def Leppard, Van Hagar, Van Halen, etc, etc. and many other songs from many other bands in my bands. I sang 6 nights a week 5 hours a night in one of the highest paid bands on the bar circuit at the time. I was told on a nightly basis that I covered the songs we played live better than the most of the original artists in a lot of cases. But yeah, whatever you say, I'm tone deaf. LOL I have been singing in bands since I was 17 and I'm 47 now. I'm pretty sure that alone qualifies me to have an opinion on her singing skills. So please don't try to lecture me on my ears, or singing ability.

My question is; Where exactly did I say she didn't suck? What part of me saying, "What I expected to hear was horribly out of tune singing" and "I really wanted her to choke" didn't you understand? Yes, I heard no sour notes. At least not any that made me cringe. Do I really have to explain my comment to that extent for you to comprehend what I was saying?

Sorry your brother couldn't make the grade. Life is tough, huh? And I'm glad he "fucking OWNED it" in a karaoke bar. (seriously? LOL) Sounds like you have a bunch of sour grapes to me. Period.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^owatadorkiam:
no processing on the vocals....she seems to still hit all the right notes...I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound that bad.

I didn't know the term "tone-deaf" described a real thing...but it does. And you suffer from it.

owatadorkiam is not tone deaf. I'm a vocalist (yes I was paid to do it for a living at one time in my life) and sorry to say I didn't hear any sour notes. Granted she's no virtuoso, but she's not singing off key at all. What I expected to hear was horribly out of tune singing and heard nothing of the sort. And yes, I really wanted to hear her choke.


yes, he most certainly is, and it would appear you are as well. an avid musician myself, this made me cringe....BUT went ahead and had my mother, a pianist and classically trained vocalist for over 40 years, my brother, a professionally trained vocalist and avid musician (you should here his Faithfully by journey, hit it at karaoke this last weekend and he fucking OWNED it), and my good friend Mandy, a vocalist and musician by hobby who trained under one of Jessica Simpsons former vocal coaches.....

and they unanimously agreed that she fucking sucks. and not just the talky verses (cuz i know thats kind of her unique stlye) but the chorus and prechorus (especially the prechorus)

you didnt hear any sour notes? that sentence alone condemns you as tonedeaf. It wasnt chock full of em but there were PLENTY to choose from.

what i will say is this: she is certainly trained, she can carry a tune (sort of), but she is mediocre at best

but thats the music industry for you. me and my brother have been in bands playing locally trying to get exposure since we were in high school........and justin fucking beiber gets a multi million contract?

it has little to nothing to do with how talented or unique you are and everything to do with one of two things: luck/right place right time, or knowing the right people

I have so many issues with this video, I don't think I'll be able to recall all of them to write down. I'll preface all of this by saying that I'm an avid poker player and during my senior year of college ('04-'05) & the year after I graduated, online poker was my sole source of income. I now make trips to AC from NYC when my hectic work/social schedule allows.

1 - You think US casinos didn't want in on online gambling from jump street? Wrong. This is a HUGE industry. Casinos aren't the RIAA; they're willing to adapt to new sources of revenue & have wanted in since online gambling started started gaining traction in the US. I don't know what happened recently with Caesar's, but I assure you that casinos have been lobbying for a long time to get a piece of the action. There have been stories for at least the last 7 years about US casinos wanting to operate online gambling sites.

2 - I'm pretty sure that online gambling is not actually illegal. What's illegal is running an online gambling site. Very important distinction. What's also illegal is US financial institutions transferring money to gambling sites. None of this has any bearing on the players. If you can manage to get money to a site, you haven't broken any laws, the bank or credit card company has. This too is a very important distinction from "online gambling is illegal." Online gambling isn't illegal. Operating an online gambling site in the US is illegal. A bank giving money to an offshore site is illegal (this law was only passed ~4 years ago). But gambling online is not illegal.

3 - Are TYT really arguing that gambling should be legal everywhere and that antigambling legislature is a purely moral issue? This is sort of ridiculous. It's just good sense. I believe poker rooms should be legalized nationwide, but I don't agree that all gambling should be. Providing every member of the population the opportunity to play the slots after a hard day of work is a very, very bad idea. Not because the bible says it's wrong, but just from an economic standpoint. They seem to be arguing that the gov't disallowing online gambling is depriving people of their rights, as if gambling isn't illegal almost everywhere in the US. Very weak & (IMO) misguided argument here.

4 - One thing they're right about, though they didn't get into it at all, is that this is going to be VERY bad for some people. Some folks who make their living doing this will have anywhere from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up on these sites. I guarantee that freezing their accounts has ruined a number of people's lives. I would have liked some more on this topic. (Though I understand I'm probably not in the majority here)

5 - Can you get the fucking aspect ratio right on Cenk's camera? Is it really so hard to center-cut a 16:9 shot? Or is Cenk just trying to make himself look skinny? Speaking of which, why isn't this whole spot 16:9? It's 2011. How long are SD aspect ratios going to be around?

That's all I remember, and I don't want to rewatch this video and get worked up all over again. Bad reporting IMO. I feel like I say that about TYT very often.

Couldn't his doctors have given him a less comical facial expression. Maybe they were avid gamers though.

Not a lot of love in here for this one. As an avid physics and astronomy fan, I've got to agree this presentation was mildly irritating.

You can vote for your own video, yes! Go for it!

There are certain things you can't "vote" -- can't upvote comments, I don't think. Vids, you can vote to your heart's content.

http://videosift.com/starpower This is a page I go to all the time. I still struggle with what I can do or not do. You can get to this by going to FAQ, scroll about 1/3 down to the list of stars, then the link is below that to get to this page.

Whew.

I "promoted" your vid to the front page -- maybe we can snag enough votes to get you out of P.

In reply to this comment by taranimator:
Yes, that's it! I do see it now .. hee hee..
But I don't think I'm allowed to vote on anything yet -- do you vote for your own vids?


I understand it takes a couple of days and then if you don't get enough upvotes it just goes back to your queue.. and I need to keep attempting to get enough votes on something to lose my "P" status, hehe..

This is a really great community. I've been an avid watcher for years but never posted anything.


Tara

>> ^bareboards2:

http://videosift.com/member/taranimator/queued
Is this it?
You haven't even voted for it yourself!

Yes, that's it! I do see it now .. hee hee..
But I don't think I'm allowed to vote on anything yet -- do you vote for your own vids?


I understand it takes a couple of days and then if you don't get enough upvotes it just goes back to your queue.. and I need to keep attempting to get enough votes on something to lose my "P" status, hehe..

This is a really great community. I've been an avid watcher for years but never posted anything.


Tara

>> ^bareboards2:

http://videosift.com/member/taranimator/queued
Is this it?
You haven't even voted for it yourself!