Well, you sure have patience. At least even the shittiest computers can run SC2 on max when Legacy of the Void comes out in 2017.

Just pointing out though, 12 hours is bullshit. Yeah you can finish Skyrim in 12 hours too, but neither of these games are worth only 12 hours of gameplay.

12 hours? Only if you blast through every mission on very easy, skip the entire story, and try to speed run your way through the campaign. Even then I doubt you'll make it on your first time.

If you actually play the game like a normal person, it'll easily take you 20 - 30 hours. Not to mention the high replay value due to mutually exclusive choices you have to make during the campaign, such as permanent unit upgrades, mercs you hire, and mutually exclusive missions.

So yeah, as a guy who rarely finishes games, and almost never replays, the WoL singleplayer alone got me a good ~60 hours of gameplay (once on hard, once on brutal), which is more than I can say about any single player game I've bought in the last decade other than Civ 4 and XCOM (and maybe Fallout NV).

And that's not counting the multiplayer.

You know that the SC2 Wings of Liberty campaign had the same amount of missions and is just as long as SC1 right?

If you have realistic unit scaling, then a Battlecruiser can easily be worth thousands of marines, and hundreds of tanks. Then an individual marine becomes meaningless, and you're now talking about commanding entire companies or battalions, which can easily become overhwhelming and tedious.

I've always thought of the battles in starcraft as abstract representations, and when you get treated to a CG movie, that's a brief glimpse of what "really" goes on during that battle.

No, but that's not a problem because unlike guns, there's no amendment giving people the right to bear nukes.

His point is still valid.

Ya way! And I was just as sure that people were calling him a tool to compliment him on his wonderful performance!

Pssst... He's a comic and these videos are staged.
Front page on reddit yesterday

http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/15x4iv/if_only_i_had_watched_this_before_choosing_to_be/c7qq5nb

Another problem with the ending is that, in the original Bruce Willis' timeline, nobody goes back to try to kill the kid. The kid ends up growing up with his mother, and still becomes the rainmaker, meaning that his mother's positive influence did not matter. So it makes Gordon-Levitt's sacrifice completely meaningless.

Yeessh, somebody's off their meds...

Hope you never get a job that requires you to actually interact with live human beings.

"Serious Empathy Fail" x2

Anyone else thinks that World War Z was a bad book?
For me, Brooks tries to give a serious global perspective of a zombie apocalypse, but his portrayal of different cultures and real world geopolitical forces falls flat.
I know it's pointless complaining about a lack of realism in a novel about zombies, but it ruins my immersion when the author seems to get his impression of the world from American news and the Karate Kid.

>> ^MilkmanDan:
If you watch high-level fencing, the participants are usually very aggressive. That is for a good reason -- high aggression usually results in more scored touches/points over time. But we're talking aggregate; over many many matches with many many participants, being more aggressive is usually better in terms of total points scored. However, that ignores the fact that if you participated in actual duels with non-blunted weapons with that same level of aggression, you might be slightly more likely to kill your first (, second, third ...) opponent, but you would also be more likely to get yourself killed. The tactics and approach are altered as a consequence of using blunted/nonlethal weapons as opposed to "shit gets real" tools of war.

Isn't high level fencing aggressive because it doesn't matter if your opponent hits you as long as you hit them first? That sort of scoring system seems to naturally favor the one with the aggression and initiative.

>> ^shinyblurry:
To know God is to Him personally. You could pray: "Jesus, if you're everything the bible says you are, I will follow you". If you can't go that far, simply ask if what I've said is true. God will show you, if you sincerely want to know. You managed to pass through the Christian religion missing the entire point of why it even exists. That is, to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, and the lover of your soul. God bless.


Tried that once. For a while, I seriously wanted Jesus and the good things people said of him to be true. Too bad reality doesn't work that way. I doubt you'll read the rest of this, much less respond, but here's what that experience taught me:

It's a beautiful comforting lie, and if you cling on to it hard enough, you will distort your reality to confirm what you want to believe. It's what happens when people thank god for saving them after an earthquake, instead of cursing him for causing the earthquake in the first place. It's why for every religion, no matter how disparate they seem, you will find people fervent enough in their beliefs to claim a personal relationship with their "god".
Christianity is not special and your "relationship" with god is not special. There are many like you, although they do not share your belief, share you delusion in belief.

The truth will reveal itself to you, if you sincerely want to know. But I think you'd rather shield yourself in your faith, in your armor of lies rather than seriously consider the possibly that your god simply does not exist. Such a thing would go against everything you've believed in since you were young, something that's an integral part of your very identity. To truly consider such a possibility would shatter the very foundations of your world, and you, like most Christian religious people, are simply not strong enough to handle it.

I feel that the "Be a Hero" ad campaign will more likely generate a wealth of amazing FAIL videos.

Nurses are underpaid? It's easy to make six figures a year with some overtime, and all that for a just a BA degree is pretty good. Not to mention you can make even more if you specialize or become a nurse practitioner. And while there percentage of male nurses is small, it is significant; saying that nursing is a sign of gender pay inequality is just pure bull shit.

And the "rape culture" and slut walk is pretty ridiculous too. Yes, women absolutely have the right to dress in whatever fashion they want to without fear of harassment. But the world is not some ideal utopia, and there are people at the fringes of society who do not abide by civilized rules. It's fucking useless to lecture them about gender equality and tell them that rape is bad mmmmkay? What the policeman said was crass, but it's common sense that if you dress provocatively, you're going to get a lot of attention, both good and bad.