>> ^valorumguygee:

>> ^apljr85:
i'm not sure that will be the case. i think they're going in the WoW direction and catering to both hardcore and casual gamers. plus i'm not sure how the linked account system is going to work, but from what i could gather, you can pretty much pay for your game time through your AH transactions. if you decide to go that route anyway.I really hope they don't turn this into an at-home arcade where you have to put in money to continue playing...


You need to do a bit more research I think...
There are no monthly fees to the game, so there's no "game time" to pay for. And the auction house real money thing does NOT need to be used to play the game at all... In the effort to combat out of game transactions that lead to MANY people being scammed and breaking eula, Blizzard found another way to make some profit, yes, but it does solve that original problem (Or go a long way towards eliminating it anyway) But I'm pretty sure most people enjoyed Diablo 2 without buying things from other players, they will do so here also.


yeah, i don't know much about it. but yes there is no monthly fee, i was referring to WoW game time. i was not very clear. but now i see why they are doing it this way to eliminate the 3rd party sites. tyvm sir

>> ^Fletch:

"Diablo III -- You Will Die. We Promise."
Impossible, because I ain't buying this online-only SP, overly-monetized (auction house), dumbed-down, linear, cartoony piece of rental-ware shit.


I'll bite.

1. Online-only: Yup.

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

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.

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

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

Your loss.

>> ^apljr85:

i'm not sure that will be the case. i think they're going in the WoW direction and catering to both hardcore and casual gamers. plus i'm not sure how the linked account system is going to work, but from what i could gather, you can pretty much pay for your game time through your AH transactions. if you decide to go that route anyway.I really hope they don't turn this into an at-home arcade where you have to put in money to continue playing...



You need to do a bit more research I think...

There are no monthly fees to the game, so there's no "game time" to pay for. And the auction house real money thing does NOT need to be used to play the game at all... In the effort to combat out of game transactions that lead to MANY people being scammed and breaking eula, Blizzard found another way to make some profit, yes, but it does solve that original problem (Or go a long way towards eliminating it anyway) But I'm pretty sure most people enjoyed Diablo 2 without buying things from other players, they will do so here also.

Your video, Diablo III -- You Will Die. We Promise., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^ponceleon:

Hours on a single boss... actually that does NOT sound like fun.

Yeah, spending that much time on a boss, and in multiplayer mode no less sounds ridiculous. I loved Diablo II and spent more hours than I care to think about playing it but the focus on multiplayer and the fact that you could only seem to find the really cool stuff in multiplayer left me feeling a little cold.

"Diablo III -- You Will Die. We Promise."

Impossible, because I ain't buying this online-only SP, overly-monetized (auction house), dumbed-down, linear, cartoony piece of rental-ware shit.

i'm not sure that will be the case. i think they're going in the WoW direction and catering to both hardcore and casual gamers. plus i'm not sure how the linked account system is going to work, but from what i could gather, you can pretty much pay for your game time through your AH transactions. if you decide to go that route anyway.>> ^ponceleon:

Hours on a single boss... actually that does NOT sound like fun. When you add in the whole game money being linked to real money and then factoring in that repairs will be expensive after continuous wipes... yeah, I'm beginning to wonder if this is not going to be a very frustrating game from a financial perspective.

I really hope they don't turn this into an at-home arcade where you have to put in money to continue playing...

darkrowan posted this in the lounge:

http://www.geekosystem.com/diablo-iii-release-rumors/

@rottenseed

However, if you read the "context" (since you dummies love to pull the
context card out), the question he is answering is:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful
for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

So pretty much the ONLY mention of a man and a woman is an exclusive
mention of not getting a divorce

Obviously it isn't the only mention, since Jesus is quoting the Old Testament. There are other verses which refer to marriage, but even if it were the only one, it doesn't change the fact that God has defined marriage to be between a man and woman and has condemned homosexual relations and fornication. One mention or 100, the truth of it is absolute.

All of this is for naught, however, since the first amendment to the
constitution, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty amazing, huh? How not only does the constitution (apparently
written and signed by "Christians") doesn't mention any "god"
whatsoever, but they make sure in an amendment, that the government
does not support any single religion. This means that, sin or not, the
government has no business enforcing any law on the basis of religion.

game. set. match.

Your declaration of victory is premature. What the founders meant by "religion" is any particular Christian denomination. They did not want any to be preferred or adopted as the national religion. Fisher Ames, who wrote the language of the first ammendment, said this:

“...we have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education....We've become accustomed of late to putting little books in the hands of children containing fables with moral lessons. We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principle text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man made book.”

The man who wrote the first amendment obviously thought it was constitutional to teach the bible as our principle text in public schools, yet today they say that even having one in the classroom violates the 1st amendment. I wonder who actually knows more about the 1st amendment or what its purpose was. Obviously it wasnt meant to prevent government support of Christianity or the bible as our principle means of education. "Imagine that"

Two years after Jefferson wrote the letter that people use to justify a separation of church and state, he ordered as a presidential act the extention of using federal lands "“for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity”. He ordered that act extended two more times before he left office. Yet today they say that we can't have a nativity scene on government property. Are you starting to see how painfully out of context your imagined secularist interpretation is? There wasn't any such thing as secularism then, because everyone was Christian and believed in God. Why do you think the US capitol building was converted to a church every sunday? Why was the first supreme court opened with a 4 hour prayer and communion service?

What you are also unaware of is that the state constitutions at the time not only mentioned God and Christianity, many of them forbid anybody but Christians taking office:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

Starting to get the picture? How about this treaty?

Continental Congress (1783), ratified a peace treaty with Great Britain at the close of the Revolutionary War. The treaty began:

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence
to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith… and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences… [p.149]


Why did George Washington announce this when they finished the constitution?:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

The evidence is insurrmountable and overwhelming that this country was founded on Christian principles. To deny it is to ignore everything that is true about our history.

And lol: Before acting in films and television, Wayne Pygram was a regular on the Australian theatre circuit. In 2005, he made a brief cameo in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith as a young Grand Moff Tarkin, because of his resemblance to Peter Cushing, who portrayed the same character 28 years previously in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.

Due to the brevity of his Star Wars cameo, and the makeup he wore on Farscape, Pygram's real face may now be known best for his appearance on the TV show Lost, as a faith healer named Isaac of Uluru.

Pygram has also played the drums in numerous bands over the past 20 years, the most recent being a band named Signal Room (formerly called Number 96) along with his co-star in Farscape, Anthony Simcoe [D'Argo]. He also teaches the drums at Kildare Catholic College, an Australian Catholic school based in Wagga Wagga. (WikiPedia)

Also interesting to note what they thought Episode III was going to be like back then. An 8 year old Luke hey?

>> ^shinyblurry:

The march is on for the normalization of sin in our daily life. This is what the bill says:
(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.
Meaning anyone who said to a gay student that they think that being gay is a sin would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the gay movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being gay is a sin to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.
My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.
God has blessed this country greatly, and gave us much favor among the nations. Yet, from those who are given much, much more will be required. We have failed to do what is required in every respect. Judgement is upon us for breaking His law, it is at our peril to allow these things. If He didn't spare israel for them, He certainly won't spare the United States.


Luckily, this law allows me to state that I have a moral conviction that you're a moron. And I religiously believe morons should be punched at every available opportunity. The FSM told me to. Also...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Meaning anyone who said to a religious student that they think that being religious is retarded would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the religious movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being religious is retarded to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.

FTFY

The march is on for the normalization of sin in our daily life. This is what the bill says:

(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.

Meaning anyone who said to a gay student that they think that being gay is a sin would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the gay movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being gay is a sin to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.

My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.

God has blessed this country greatly, and gave us much favor among the nations. Yet, from those who are given much, much more will be required. We have failed to do what is required in every respect. Judgement is upon us for breaking His law, it is at our peril to allow these things. If He didn't spare israel for them, He certainly won't spare the United States.

I agree with you in principle but s**t man, relax. It's only the internets. >> ^jackhalfaprayer:

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.
but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.

but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.