>> ^zombieater:

>> ^RadHazG:
It never fails to amaze me that self-righteous Prius drivers (as opposed to normal ones) never seem to realize it costs the environment MORE just to build their stupid car than it does to build and run the average "gas guzzler". But then the environmental side has its share of idiotic nutters who don't care about reality or facts, just like the climate change deniers have as well.

>> ^Yogi:
I used to drive a Prius. Depending on how old the Diesel truck is it might be better for the environment than a new prius. A new car takes a lot to put into it, there was a report done on the Prius in particular, it gets its batterys from a plant in Canada I believe and around that plant it's become a complete wasteland. Also it's components are shipped from other parts of the globe on boats which burn TONS of fuel as well.
You want something good for the environment, buy a used car from someplace where another person won't be buying a new car to replace it. Keep your car on the road and take care of it, that's the best you can do.

Well it seems that there are a few reporters who have done their research and who would disagree with those statements. This article focuses more on the battery farce and addresses Yogi's statement about the "wasteland" in Canada (also a peer reviewed article does the same).


Both those articles are about Hummer vs. Prius, not what I was talking about at all.

>> ^RadHazG:

It never fails to amaze me that self-righteous Prius drivers (as opposed to normal ones) never seem to realize it costs the environment MORE just to build their stupid car than it does to build and run the average "gas guzzler". But then the environmental side has its share of idiotic nutters who don't care about reality or facts, just like the climate change deniers have as well.


>> ^Yogi:

I used to drive a Prius. Depending on how old the Diesel truck is it might be better for the environment than a new prius. A new car takes a lot to put into it, there was a report done on the Prius in particular, it gets its batterys from a plant in Canada I believe and around that plant it's become a complete wasteland. Also it's components are shipped from other parts of the globe on boats which burn TONS of fuel as well.
You want something good for the environment, buy a used car from someplace where another person won't be buying a new car to replace it. Keep your car on the road and take care of it, that's the best you can do.


Well it seems that there are a few reporters who have done their research and who would disagree with those statements. This article focuses more on the battery farce and addresses Yogi's statement about the "wasteland" in Canada (also a peer reviewed article does the same).

I used to drive a Prius. Depending on how old the Diesel truck is it might be better for the environment than a new prius. A new car takes a lot to put into it, there was a report done on the Prius in particular, it gets its batterys from a plant in Canada I believe and around that plant it's become a complete wasteland. Also it's components are shipped from other parts of the globe on boats which burn TONS of fuel as well.

You want something good for the environment, buy a used car from someplace where another person won't be buying a new car to replace it. Keep your car on the road and take care of it, that's the best you can do.

I thought it was great... mostly. Amazing graphics, and some of the fighting was awesome. I don't think it was too short, Steam says I played for 17 hours, but like Elron says, it seemed like it was building up to something awesome but then it just sort of ended, which gives the final impression of being short. Some of the earlier levels were pretty epic, and I figured they'd have something pretty cool for the end, but nope, it was probably the most mundane level of all. If they had just added one more hour of epicness in the authority city, it would have made all the difference in the world.

I'd actually say the game could be improved by a fairly simple mod: Remove the vehicles, and make it so you have to fight your way through hordes of mutants in the wasteland on foot to get to mission hubs, making it worthwhile by having them drop interesting loot. The vehicles were well done, but IMO, just unnecessary.

I understand there is a Doom remake in the works that uses this engine. That could be awesome. Screw story, characters, whatever, just give me some ridiculous weapons and set me loose on martian research facility overrun by zombies and demons, with just enough plot to keep it moving forward.

So many things wrong. Why the dress in a wasteland and does she live there or is she dreaming? What's with the weird toothy grimace while driving? Where did her purse go? Why didn't she open the boot of her car? How come when he shoots the second time there's twice as many shells on the ground than the first time even though he shot less? Where did his car go? If the balloon signified her time to die, and the clown was death, where's the tie in to real life on how she actually died? If that, why all the balloons after?

>> ^kceaton1:

The only problem I have with the trolling of shinyblurry, is that while I have him on ignore it doesn't resolve the issue. Everyone one else starts to participate in these religious flame wars, that are never informative , always the same in tone and nature, and always moronic. The thread turns into this wasteland of shinyblurry topics instead, with no way to sort it out except by reading a bit and moving on.
I can do this, no problem. But, I think we gain little from shinyblurry's contributions if they are one trick pony efforts alone and always on "convert" mode. I can't ignore everyone. Just look at this thread and the nature it took on. Half of it is for shinyblurry except for the top part.
I don't think we need a ban, but perhaps a censure/suspension to try to assuage shinyblurry's "one trick pony" attitude. Perhaps to learn to post in a normal sense than always trying to thread-jack with commentary I could pre-emptily write myself, most likely semi-verbatim (I hate to say, but the thread-jacking works well, and I think needs to be discussed). It may not bother some of you, but may of us are tired of the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
No the comments are not hurtful or an outrage. They are merely begin to reach off-topic, every-time, in the exact same fashion.


Thank You, kceaton1.
You've said what I was trying to say--only infinitely better than I.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I have every right to express my views, and simply because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you have the right to censor me. This is quite plainly a fascist statement, where you are advocating that I be monitored so I am making the right kinds of comments that the most people agree with as being proper.
Your comment is also hypocritical as you were just recently having an indepth conversation with me on the nature of time and space. I didn't see your last reply there, otherwise I would have finished the conversation..however now I guess I shouldn't bother since you have me on ignore.
>> ^kceaton1:
The only problem I have with the trolling of shinyblurry, is that while I have him on ignore it doesn't resolve the issue. Everyone one else starts to participate in these religious flame wars, that are never informative , always the same in tone and nature, and always moronic. The thread turns into this wasteland of shinyblurry topics instead, with no way to sort it out except by reading a bit and moving on.
I can do this, no problem. But, I think we gain little from shinyblurry's contributions if they are one trick pony efforts alone and always on "convert" mode. I can't ignore everyone. Just look at this thread and the nature it took on. Half of it is for shinyblurry except for the top part.
I don't think we need a ban, but perhaps a censure/suspension to try to assuage shinyblurry's "one trick pony" attitude. Perhaps to learn to post in a normal sense than always trying to thread-jack with commentary I could pre-emptily write myself, most likely semi-verbatim (I hate to say, but the thread-jacking works well, and I think needs to be discussed). It may not bother some of you, but may of us are tired of the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
No the comments are not hurtful or an outrage. They are merely begin to reach off-topic, every-time, in the exact same fashion.
Sorry, @shinyblurry (don't respond to this as I don't read your stuff anymore, go ahead--if you feel you need to though), but you are an outright troll for this community. I've yet to had a reason to feel a need to upvote anything you've ever done. Even QM gets upvotes from me all the time as he doesn't have to rely on some sideshow to answer or post about in every video/post he does participate in.
For now I will just browse and scroll. Sooner or later I may just downvote any comment that is thread-jacking continuously that deals with this subject. Harsh, but it gets tiring. Especially, when we are talking about a plastic bracelet that does nothing.



Its impossible to win any kind of Internet argument/debate. Its impossible to have any sort of rational/logical discussion with a fanatic or member of the religious fringe. Basically, debating with this guy will only lead to a double loop of fruitlessness and inanity. Its tempting to engage people like this (which unfortunately I am doing right now) but all youre doing is "feeding the 'tards."

I have every right to express my views, and simply because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you have the right to censor me. This is quite plainly a fascist statement, where you are advocating that I be monitored so I am making the right kinds of comments that the most people agree with as being proper.

Your comment is also hypocritical as you were just recently having an indepth conversation with me on the nature of time and space. I didn't see your last reply there, otherwise I would have finished the conversation..however now I guess I shouldn't bother since you have me on ignore.

>> ^kceaton1:
The only problem I have with the trolling of shinyblurry, is that while I have him on ignore it doesn't resolve the issue. Everyone one else starts to participate in these religious flame wars, that are never informative , always the same in tone and nature, and always moronic. The thread turns into this wasteland of shinyblurry topics instead, with no way to sort it out except by reading a bit and moving on.
I can do this, no problem. But, I think we gain little from shinyblurry's contributions if they are one trick pony efforts alone and always on "convert" mode. I can't ignore everyone. Just look at this thread and the nature it took on. Half of it is for shinyblurry except for the top part.
I don't think we need a ban, but perhaps a censure/suspension to try to assuage shinyblurry's "one trick pony" attitude. Perhaps to learn to post in a normal sense than always trying to thread-jack with commentary I could pre-emptily write myself, most likely semi-verbatim (I hate to say, but the thread-jacking works well, and I think needs to be discussed). It may not bother some of you, but may of us are tired of the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
No the comments are not hurtful or an outrage. They are merely begin to reach off-topic, every-time, in the exact same fashion.
Sorry, @shinyblurry (don't respond to this as I don't read your stuff anymore, go ahead--if you feel you need to though), but you are an outright troll for this community. I've yet to had a reason to feel a need to upvote anything you've ever done. Even QM gets upvotes from me all the time as he doesn't have to rely on some sideshow to answer or post about in every video/post he does participate in.
For now I will just browse and scroll. Sooner or later I may just downvote any comment that is thread-jacking continuously that deals with this subject. Harsh, but it gets tiring. Especially, when we are talking about a plastic bracelet that does nothing.

The only problem I have with the trolling of shinyblurry, is that while I have him on ignore it doesn't resolve the issue. Everyone one else starts to participate in these religious flame wars, that are never informative , always the same in tone and nature, and always moronic. The thread turns into this wasteland of shinyblurry topics instead, with no way to sort it out except by reading a bit and moving on.

I can do this, no problem. But, I think we gain little from shinyblurry's contributions if they are one trick pony efforts alone and always on "convert" mode. I can't ignore everyone. Just look at this thread and the nature it took on. Half of it is for shinyblurry except for the top part.

I don't think we need a ban, but perhaps a censure/suspension to try to assuage shinyblurry's "one trick pony" attitude. Perhaps to learn to post in a normal sense than always trying to thread-jack with commentary I could pre-emptily write myself, most likely semi-verbatim (I hate to say, but the thread-jacking works well, and I think needs to be discussed). It may not bother some of you, but may of us are tired of the sheer ridiculousness of it all.

No the comments are not hurtful or an outrage. They are merely begin to reach off-topic, every-time, in the exact same fashion.

Sorry, @shinyblurry (don't respond to this as I don't read your stuff anymore, go ahead--if you feel you need to though), but you are an outright troll for this community. I've yet to had a reason to feel a need to upvote anything you've ever done. Even QM gets upvotes from me all the time as he doesn't have to rely on some sideshow to answer or post about in every video/post he does participate in.

For now I will just browse and scroll. Sooner or later I may just downvote any comment that is thread-jacking continuously that deals with this subject. Harsh, but it gets tiring. Especially, when we are talking about a plastic bracelet that does nothing.

Considering the universe is a whole lotta nothin, I'd probably pay a whole lotta nothin. Everything we've seen and explored is a depressing, barren wasteland of nothingness. How about we go find a suitable planet to live on and wipe out all the dinosaurs on it so we can make a new home and build stargates between the two worlds so we can send nukes back and forth and wage war trying to control sections of that new world and destroy it just like we have this one?

I mean come on, people! Let's push up!

>> ^entr0py:

It always baffles me how Yahtzee often chooses to play the console versions of games when there is a PC version available the same day. That would have taken care of the gripes about auto targeting and mashing the attack button. And since the control is so much better, it does allow you to concentrate on tactics and positioning. I guess maybe he knows most viewers will be playing on consoles as well, and wants to share their pain.
Ultimately I thought the game was worthwhile because it's about 70% of what you'd expect form a Bioware game, and that's still better than most RPGs. Disappointing, but an enjoyable sort of disappointment.


I'm surprised you say that.

I felt that Dragon Age Origins was not quite there, but the best RPG released since baldur's gate/fallout (proper fallout, not oblivion wasteland fallout) days. I was very disappointed by Dragon Age 2. Felt completely rushed. If they had released more of the same (same engine) then i'd have accepted that and been happy to have it. If they improved on it, i'd be impressed. Instead, it seems they rushed out something which went counter to the brilliant setup they made for themselves with Origins.

I felt that Dragon Age Origins was 200% of what i'd expect from a "modern bioware" game, which made the game enjoyable. I felt that Dragon Age 2 was about what i'd expect from a modern bioware game, which is why i didn't play it past about 15 minutes.

By modern bioware, i mean past about 2005. Sorry, i'm not a console player, i have much higher standards and i do not accept mass effect as a good rpg. I'm a bit snooty about my rpgs, you can blame that on being spoiled by an extremely high standard of bioware/interplay rpgs when i was a kid.

I always wondered why to my mother that we couldn't just throw all the nuclear waste into a volcano like Kīlauea?? Could we? Have they!?
I think this is a good explanation. FROM INTERNET

Dumping all our nuclear waste in a volcano does seem like a neat solution for destroying the roughly 29,000 tons of spent uranium fuel rods stockpiled around the world. But there’s a critical standard that a volcano would have to meet to properly dispose of the stuff, explains Charlotte Rowe, a volcano geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. And that standard is heat. The lava would have to not only melt the fuel rods but also strip the uranium of its radioactivity. “Unfortunately,” Rowe says, “volcanoes just aren’t very hot.”

Lava in the hottest volcanoes tops out at around 2,400˚F. (These tend to be shield volcanoes, so named for their relatively flat, broad profile. The Hawaiian Islands continue to be formed by this type of volcano.) It takes temperatures that are tens of thousands of degrees hotter than that to split uranium’s atomic nuclei and alter its radioactivity to make it inert, Rowe says. What you need is a thermonuclear reaction, like an atomic bomb—not a great way to dispose of nuclear waste.

Volcanoes aren’t hot enough to melt the zirconium (melting point 3,371˚) that encases the fuel, let alone the fuel itself: The melting point of uranium oxide, the fuel used at most nuclear power plants, is 5,189˚. The liquid lava in a shield volcano pushes upward, so the rods probably wouldn’t even sink very deep, Rowe says. They wouldn’t sink at all in a stratovolcano, the most explosive type, exemplified by Washington’s Mount St. Helens. Instead, the waste would just sit on top of the volcano’s hard lava dome—at least until the pressure from upsurging magma became so great that the dome cracked and the volcano erupted. And that’s the real problem.

A regular lava flow is hazardous enough, but the lava pouring out of a volcano used as a nuclear storage facility would be extremely radioactive. Eventually it would harden, turning that mountain’s slopes into a nuclear wasteland for decades to come. And the danger would extend much farther. “All volcanoes do is spew stuff upward,” Rowe says. “During a big eruption, ash and gas can shoot six miles into the air and afterward circle the globe several times. We’d all be in serious trouble.”

>> ^shagen454:

In reply to this comment by oohlalasassoon:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^shagen454:
I really thought Bethesda would choke on the Fallout series... it was a pleasant surprise when Fallout 3 turned out to be a gem. Let's hope Elder Scrolls V isn't just a technologically good looking hiking simulator.

A little bit of me dies inside every time someone says fallout 3 was a gem. It NEEDS to be a qualified statement - it was a good game, it wasn't a good Fallout game. People don't even know how amazing that game SHOULD have been. (that's why original fallout fans were so disappointed btw)
Back to the video - didn't have much content really, did it?

Thanks for posting, you saved me the trouble.
Oh come on you guys, Fallout 3 was far better than you thought it was going to be and you know it. I was just as cynical as you guys are (and I was an original Fallout fan - meaning when each title came out I directly to my local EB and bought each one in succession, years apart and I knew no one that ever heard of the game series back then).
Fallout 3 is a good Bethesda game - that's what we're talking about here - Bethesda, not the merits of what makes a real Fallout game. With Fallout 3 they convinced me that they could make a good game and not totally screw up everything. And when I look back on Fallout 3; yes it is a gem of a game.


I don't "know it", it was a disappointment to me from the very first minute. I felt absolutely no fallout atmosphere whatsoever throughout the entire game. I hated it. Only after leaving it for a few months did i realise that the game was ok, it just wasn't a good fallout game, and then i went back and played it as "random wastelands shooter #1". Enjoyed it that way.

You can't convince me (nor 99% of fallout fans) that fallout 3 was a good fallout game, it's been discussed to death and the weight of opinion sides with us.

My father is very literal-minded and has real trouble making sense of scenes like this. For instance, the scene in Michael Clayton when George Clooney stands with the horses on the hill was a big mystery to him.

The YouTube commenter that gwiz is quoting also has some trouble with literal-mindedness. Not as much trouble as my Dad, but it never crosses the commenter's mind that Alex Cox (the director) is merely constructing a series of symbols. In the commenter's world, this scene can only be a thing that he can identify with, a dream. It must be a drug-induced dream: the human construction of an altered mind.

Well, why should it be so limiting? Ask Blankfist, he'll tell you that directors are visual storytellers. Cox had to figure a way to wrap this tragic tale up in some artistic fashion. Why not re-tell Sid's entire story in the last scene with nothing but symbols? Sid eats pizza in the wasteland (working-class England), he is belligerent and anti-social (flipping the table over), he begrudgingly dances with little kids (the Sex Pistols), and then he dies with Nancy (the taxi).

In fact, the soundtrack lists the title to this gloomy instrumental song as "Taxi to Heaven." So is it a dream or something much much more subtle and therefore better?

I rest my case, your honor.

Agreed. I just beat it and now I'm going to start over and play it again.
>> ^HugeJerk:

This game is so much better than Fallout 3 and I enjoyed the hell out of Fallout 3.