>> ^EvilDeathBee:

@coolhund
Ah, so you're a PC elitest. They're the worst at being opinionated douche bags, stuck in the past moaning about every game that comes out these days. I prefer my gaming on PC, especially shooters and despise poor ports, but I'm not a total dick about it. Next you'll be saying something like "STFU fag noob!".
I also think you do not understand my comments and instead of actually thinking about what i mean by evolution, like the definition being survival of the fittest, fittest being the games that actually sell, you just attack and start spewing your demented hate. Game design has evolved, many aspects for the better, many IMO for the worse, but denying that it is evolution is retarded.
The current industry works like this. Game development can cost 10s to sometimes 100s of millions of dollars, not including marketing, which again costs millions of dollars and is vital. These days it doesn't matter how good a game is, if it doesn't have branding or good marketing behind it, it wont sell. In some cases not even then because launch window is important too. Very rarely a game comes out of no where and surprises people and becomes a hit, but as I said, rarely. Investors/Publishers are rarely willing to release something totally different or release in a genre they know doesn't sell, and frankly who would be? Would you seriously be willing to risk losing that much money on such a risky investment? It's a business!
You'll be surprised to know I actually agree with you partly, the cause for this is the size of the industry now and the size of it's userbase. However what do you expect to happen to it? Do you expect the industry to stagnate, stay as it was 15 years ago and not grow yet still stay alive just to create your space flight sims? And yes, indie development is where all the ingenuity comes from, low risk and also low reward.
We only recall those nostalgic games we hold dear. Sometimes they live up to modern scrutiny, often they don't (a friend of mine who'd never played System Shock 2 or Deus Ex gave both ago. Loved SS2, couldn't get into Deus Ex). You never recall all the games that were shit. I can barely recall them, but i do remember there being a lot more shit games than good games.
These old classic games will always hold a place in my heart and many of them, especially the phenomenal Quake, I could always fire up (assuming I can get them running) and have a fun time, but that is nostalgia. Indie devs will be the ones to turn to, to experience old school game design. If that's enough for you, wtf are you so angry about? If you seriously expect AAA publishers to release games like that, you're in for a seriously long wait.
Now, I've had enough squabbling with a 30 year old child. Go back to your mother's basement, continue to replay your old games and by all means, don't stop complaining on the internet about how modern gaming has ruined your "life". I'll be here in the present, looking to the future and thinking fondly of the past


Why should I call you something like that? Dont put your standards on others. Well, you still havent grasped what I am trying to say. No wonder.
Yes, I know very well how the market looks right now. I know how it developed and I know whats to blame. That doesnt mean I deal with it. Dealing with it would mean I would have given in, and I never give in when things I like get destroyed. That may be futile in this case, with so many idiots like yourself who have given in and went back to mindless consume, but I dont care.

Games have not evolved. Since 2007 the graphics have not become much better, all in all they have actually gotten worse. The controls and gameplay have become much worse since 2006 or so and the genre variety and diversity has declined a lot.

You really think I grasp too much for classics? I dont care for classics, except for their memories and maybe one or two I still play from time to time. Why would I think a game (yes, a PC game) released in 2009 is the best game Ive ever played then? You know nothing about me and your assumptions are dead wrong. Each and every one. Funnily, my assumption of you being an ignorant prick just got confirmed again.

Yes I know how much marketing costs... or rather how much they make it cost. EA for example spends 2 times as much on marketing than on the game itself (prolly 3 or 4 times in case of BF3). Thats how games get so expensive. Get a clue.

Yeah, I have also wasted enough time on your ignorance and I wont be wasting more time trying to explain anything to you, not even a novel-sized text would help anyway.

Psychedelics (Psychotropics; and their main "term" in the next sentence) are definitely interesting mind wise. As I have in my own profile, Psychoactive drugs are indeed ALL very interesting.

This can include something as mundane as Codeine all the way up to LSD. Quick Message: Cocaine and Heroine are the same "type" of drugs technically: i.e. changed perception, mood alteration, etc... But, these ARE very dangerous to play with, versus the reward you receive: the reward here being an expanded mind that has the ability to understand any information from the remembered mental states that are achieved at the height of the drugs half-life in the body. Typically, specifically with shrooms or Psilocybin, it will create a calm-well being, and positive affirmation after affect that will even defeat depression in certain cases. This has been researched in atleast two studies that I've seen, Bill also talks of yet another--yet, he didn't mention that there is a 1% chance, and it may actually be lower than that now with further testing, that a "bad trip" will occur causing the reverse, but luckily not lasting in a long-term manifestation like the "good-trips".

There are generally two ways your going to enlighten yourself. Drugs like Marijuana will give a "high". Hopefully, with a mental state induced called: euphoria. The euphoric effect will allow you to feel very much "mood-stabilized". If you were depressed euphoria can completely reverse it, which can cause problems as it may cause you to become "psychologically addicted" to it due too it's affect; especially if depressed and more-so if you have an addictive personality trait in your genes (if this were Cocaine it would most likely always lead to a downward spiral and death). This is how many people lose the addiction game with bad drugs like Cocaine and Heroine, or even the Codeine you're doctor prescribes you. Anyway, the Euphoria allows many people to reach a level of peace and comfort that they can't otherwise. The sheer change in the organization of how you synapses fire to give you perceptual information, memories, and your own thoughts--have changed from your normal state. You literally think different. But, when you start to think about what you're working on, the same ideas no longer come back as they did just before you started to use: they come back changed. This is where change happens, it's where inspiration can come from.

For drugs like acid it becomes even easier to understand why you may think much greater things. Once the drug works it starts linking many of your perceptual areas, with your thoughts together into one giant drawing board. Sometimes, most of the time your subconscious mind, specifically your dream center starts to play with you using random memory sequences or perceptual information. Then when it fully takes hold you leave Earth as you've known it, while the drug is in full affect (this is why usually friends get others to watch over them, lest you do something incredibly bad--this is also why you really shouldn't play with the scarier drugs). It's very easy to see where these great ideas come from now, as now you are walking in a dream that is semi-controlled and mostly not. It begins to add random merging patterns, what the overall goal of the mind is at this point most likely is just to link all the information together; like a new song with a DJ. But, the experience is a lot like a journey, sometimes without prodding you will literally walk into a room with the "treasure chest", or the game changing idea that you need.

What you truly get in the end is the ability to realize that the human body is grand, with the brain a magnificent structure, designed in simplicity, but able to grow to see past that simplicity, that structure, those people that never went and looked, and you see the men that can stand on the shoulders of giants. Those that push the envelope.

If it was me go for shrooms, acid, and marijuana. But, read up on each and every one first so you know what to expect and NOT what to do to jeopardize your life; lastly, this is ILLEGAL...). All of these type of drugs are able to create a very unique experience while active on your active brain. Hopefully, like may others in history you can act like a Psychoactive compound on our collective psyche, as many have before.

/long but hopefully informative
//they're still Illegal...
///edited for grammar

Play on. You head butted me, you apologized, you were on a run of hits, expect me to come back. Be ready. It ain't over film you go down. Nuff said.

there is a password protect mod. It's used in a server I used to play in. You had to attach a sign with a password to your chests.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Hackers using X-ray vision will still be able to see it, though. They really need to make password-protected chests in the next upgrade.

Please take your bullshit somewhere else and quit looking for a fight. You ever view a video, pause it and go shit/shower/shave ? go leave while your on a page and go smoke a joint ?

There are so many possibilities, and yet you come at me with that crap because you didnt like the downvote the video generated from me.

Kindly, fuck off.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Yes, play dumb. You're very good at it! Got me convinced

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
which ?

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
You sure did view that video for a long time, Boner.

>> ^catbutt:

Cry us a river, Mazzeo - your cops act like a bunch of kids in a playground, handing out tickets to cars parked more than an inch away from the curb, and you're bitching now because the people are pissed off and threatening the police force? Tough shit. If your cops want to play games, of course they're going to invite threats. Take measures to bring them in line, don't fucking support them and promote their behavior. Idiot.


"Games," as you say, versus, "I will murder you while you sleep" definitely seems tit for tat. *Bullshit* And it certainly adds to the debate. *Bullshit* I wonder if you skipped someone in line at the grocery store and they threatened to murder you and your family because of that game you just played, would you be fine with it? "Boohoo, you cut in line like someone on a playground. Now I want you to die..." That somehow doesn't seem right--but from what you said, it seems you would be fine with it...

Sorry, but upping the ante with threats of violence is wrong. It is wrong for COPS, especially cops, and it is wrong for civilians. Excusing that is unacceptable. And before I finish; threats of violence lead the weak minded to act on violence. It is an entire culture we create, which we don't think of, that acts on the violence... And these real life consequences are getting both sides killed. Young thugs (And old crazy people) who think it's cool to take threats they hear about and act on, and officers... Both sides. Sad.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.
Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.
You don't understand logic either, it seems.

There you go attacking me instead of the argument. I don't think you're a racist, and I understand there's a difference between early Dems and modern Dems. Why not stick to the argument instead of lying and attacking my intelligence in the hopes of changing the subject.
It's you that has your history wrong. Not me. So if I want "to toss out historical examples", as you put it, then I'll certainly do just that because it makes for a better platform than platitudes.


Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.
Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.
You don't understand logic either, it seems.


There you go attacking me instead of the argument. I don't think you're a racist, and I understand there's a difference between early Dems and modern Dems. Why not stick to the argument instead of lying and attacking my intelligence in the hopes of changing the subject.

It's you that has your history wrong. Not me. So if I want "to toss out historical examples", as you put it, then I'll certainly do just that because it makes for a better platform than platitudes.

>> ^blankfist:

But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.


But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.

Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.

You don't understand logic either, it seems.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Lawdeedaw, I agree. Like I said, early US was plagued with problems, but most of those were hold overs from the colonies (e.g., slavery). And even the Framers knew slavery wasn't harmonious with liberalism. It was tolerated to gain the support of the Southern colonies lest they lose their revolution.
I could go on and on about the early atrocities of the US, especially the trail of tears initiated by the very first Democratic President, Jackson. @NetRunner hates it when I throw facts like that in his face.
I think the problem you have whenever you try to toss out historical examples is that you don't know enough about history to use them appropriately. For example, Andrew Jackson was a classical liberal. And Southern.
More generally, the Democratic party of the 19th century had a platform very near and dear to your heart. Small government, state's rights, against government funded infrastructure, against national debt, against the national bank, in favor of the gold standard (they were against paper money, even!), against economic regulation, against economic protectionism, etc.
Yes, they saw the ownership of people as legitimate, but so do plenty of libertarians. Seems like such a small disagreement when you look at the full policy platform of the 19th century Democrats.


But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.

He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."

Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

I've been thinking about picking this one up second hand at some point because of the positive reivews, but it's worryingly reminiscent of the whole mid-nineties FMV game atrocity.
edit:
But yeah, it is very pretty.


It's worth it, it can be compared to other games but isn't quite like any of them. I think it's certainly the shape of things to come though with the face capture.

The ending is a bit wtf, but it's certainly worth a play. If you're not keen on buying it, defiantly rent it.

>> ^radx:

That's even more wtf than the other one.
0:42 -- is the commentator really saying "ninja sniper"?


Yeah, that's the ninja horse's name.

Play the game yourself here!: http://www.jra-jwc.jp/win5/

My first race I had a horse with a mohawk and a horse with an afro. Halfway through the race all the horses got power-ups... one was on skis and another tried to run on top of a giant tire! The winner was a horse that rode on a swiveling chair. All the horses have hilarious gag names to match their looks.

How to play (if you can't read Japanese): [NOTE: You can only purchase 20 tickets per day unless you delete the cookie from your browser history]

1) Go to the website (http://www.jra-jwc.jp/win5/)
2) Click the red "skip" button in the lower right to skip the intro.
3) Click the red button again: Japan World Cup 3 Wins を始める！！ (It now says "Begin Japan 3 World Cup Wins" in Japanese)
4) Click the first yellow tab next to the red button that says "馬券購入" (purchase tickets)
5) For ease of play, I suggest clicking the yellow button on the far right that says ランダム (randomly choose horses)
6) Next, you have to decide how many tickets to buy... you can only buy 20 tickets per day (unless you clear the browser history/cookie cache). I suggest you pick 20. When you're ready, click the button that looks like this: 購入 (purchase)
7) The next screen shows you your picks for the races (there will be 5 WTF races--remember, these horses have been randomly picked for you). Click the yellow button that looks like this: 決定 (confirm)
Click the red button that looks like this: 出走 and has a picture of a jockey riding a horse (begin run)
9) Click the red button that looks like this: レースに進む！！　(start the race)
10) Enjoy your WTF race!

In Soviet Russia tennis balls play with you.

>> ^blankfist:

I know you think you're being clever right now by playing semantics, but I promise you I meant a lot more than just being fair in regards to whose videos get discarded.
Have you never sifted a video that was a portion of something larger? Do you not see how that would not be considered a dupe?


It's got nothing to do with being clever or playing semantics. You asked if it was fair and I said it was so long as it's applied uniformly. That's my opinion and just because it doesn't match yours doesn't mean I'm playing head games.

Have I ever sifted an excerpt? I think I have. I forget what it was about but it was a news clip and someone had posted a more complete copy a few days earlier. I didn't find it when I did a pre-submission search. Mine was given the dupe treatment, as it should have been.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.

Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:
-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.
If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?
What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?

The evidence that the US has never acted in a humanitarian manner when bombing someone.
Look I'm not going to contest any points you make, I'm simply going to advise caution. This story hasn't come out enough yet...there might be more.


But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission. That much we can say with certainty. Even Al Jazeera's article here leaves little doubt where things were going hours before the UN resolution was passed.

The article includes this quote from an interview with Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN:

In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly.

Advising caution is great. Advising inaction in the face of a pending genocide is cowardice.