The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

What's all that about, eh?
Lately, it seems that our conservatives are becoming more like american republican senators, which is a shame since there are very few people in Canada an MP with an American republican political stance could accurately represent.

I do agree that the TV shows such as Wild Roses, Little Mosque on the Prairie, Insecurity, Republic of Doyle, Being Erica do not deserve public funding. They aren't worth much at all as far as entertainment goes.

I don't think CBC television should be terminated completely; CBC in the past has brought us Kids in the Hall and helped keep SCTV on the air. This Hour has 22 minutes used to be funny, but that was a long time ago, and not much has come since. More recent canadian comedy successes were not a result of CBC, Corner Gas, for one.
I don't think most Canadians would oppose a budget cut to CBC TV, but definitely would to termination of funding full stop.

And don't touch CBC Radio!!!!


>> ^kymbos:

Wow, what happened to Canada? It used to be so progressive!

Almost every day, Conservative MPs rise in the House of Commons calling for the de-funding of our national public broadcaster. Some are sponsoring petitions and trumped up “polls” on their websites to attack the CBC. Currently, Rob Anders, the Conservative MP for Calgary West, is circulating an online petition to the House of Commons calling on the Conservative government to "end public funding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation".

And, the fundraising wing of the Conservative Party has also launched a loaded survey which asks financial supporters "In recent years, CBC funding has exceeded a billion dollars per year. Do you think taxpayers receive good value or bad value from the CBC?" The fundraising pitch goes on to say that "This survey is very, very important to our legislative planning".

Conservative MPs have not stopped there. With the head of SUN Media cheering from the sidelines, the Conservatives have also launched offensives against the CBC at two Parliamentary Committees.
- http://www.friends.ca/smackdown/more.php

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

There are many, many multiplayer only games, and I'm not even talking about MMOs. Console games have lagged behind PC in terms of online connectivity, but with the success of PSN and Xbox Live, multiplayer has become much more prominent in the console-space, and will be even more relevant with the next generation. When you are playing the sequel to one of the historically greatest PC multiplayer only franchises, yes complaining about the singleplayer is like complaining about the salad at the steak restaurant.

And when 95% of your "reviews" focuses on why a game sucks, you are a "hater". It's hard to take someone's "opinions" seriously when their idea of game of the year is Saints Row 2.


>> ^Deano:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^Deano:
Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.

Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.
Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).

If it's fair game then I don't think the steak house analogy really applies. If on the other hand it was heavily hyped as MP with far less emphasis on SP then I can see where one might have cause for concern.
The thing is no publisher is ever going to market a game that just has multiplayer, even if for many dedicated fans that is what the game is really about. They still have to sell a game to everyone which includes people like me who will play the SP, maybe flirt with the MP for a short while then stop playing.

>> ^Gallowflak:

The reason the SP was hyped up and marketed so much was that it was EA's forced, ridiculous and damaging attempt to have Battlefield 3 compete with Modern Warfare 3. Anyone who knows anything about the series is aware that this is a multiplayer franchise, offering vast battlefields, large playercounts and strategic openness not seen anywhere else in shooters. Except maybe Tribes.
I can't fault anyone for paying undue attention to Battlefield 3's singleplayer, considering how the game's marketing has been handled. But it shouldn't be the reason for investigating BF3. Your reason should be being able to bail out of a jet and top speed, parachute down onto the turret of a tank, plaster it with C4 and blow yourself to oblivion.


That sounds a bit odd since Call of Duty is also heavy on MP emphasis is it not? The problem is that realistically, Battlefield does simply not have the same pull over consumers that CoD does.

That kind of plays into my thinking that what most people want, and indeed buy in their millions, is an explosive, viscerally exciting rollercoaster ride.

Thus I'm not at all surprised that BF3's SP seems to be as shallow as anything Infinity Ward has offered.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Deano:
Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.

Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.
Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).


If it's fair game then I don't think the steak house analogy really applies. If on the other hand it was heavily hyped as MP with far less emphasis on SP then I can see where one might have cause for concern.
The thing is no publisher is ever going to market a game that just has multiplayer, even if for many dedicated fans that is what the game is really about. They still have to sell a game to everyone which includes people like me who will play the SP, maybe flirt with the MP for a short while then stop playing.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

>> ^deathcow:
How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.

The multiplayer FPS has certainly evolved since Quake. No dispute there. My contention is that they STOPPED evolving and have hit what I call an "innovation plateau" circa 1999. No major strides have been made since then, just the refinement/streamlining (which much of the time amounts to down-sizing) of already existing mechanics/capabilities (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in of itself, as games like TF2 prove).
Starsiege: Tribes was doing futuristic class-based gameplay with 128-256 player matches in huge, wide-open expanses with a full suite of vehicles and commander/command station/team bases and defense structures (which all rely on an energy source that must be defended to function) and a variety of player role customization options in 1999! Where are the successors who would take the core of this legacy and expand upon it? I don't doubt it'll happen eventually but damn, I'd have never guessed it'd have taken this long if asked at the turn of the century.
Had Tribes set the world on fire sales-wise I'm guessing the landscape of the MP FPS would look very different today. Instead it serves as another example to publishers that innovation on that scale, as incredible a game it may produce, simply isn't worth the risk.


would have a hard time arguing against that

maybe that upcoming star wars whatever the hell it is will innovate

>> ^deathcow:

How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.


The multiplayer FPS has certainly evolved since Quake. No dispute there. My contention is that they STOPPED evolving and have hit what I call an "innovation plateau" circa 1999. No major strides have been made since then, just the refinement/streamlining (which much of the time amounts to down-sizing) of already existing mechanics/capabilities (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in of itself, as games like TF2 prove).

Starsiege: Tribes was doing futuristic class-based gameplay with 128-256 player matches in huge, wide-open expanses with a full suite of vehicles and commander/command station/team bases/sensor arrays and defense structures (which all rely on an energy source that must be defended to function) and a variety of player role customization options in 1999! Where are the successors who would take the core of this legacy and expand upon it? I don't doubt it'll happen eventually but damn, I'd have never guessed it'd have taken this long if asked at the turn of the century.

Had Tribes set the world on fire sales-wise I'm guessing the landscape of the MP FPS would look very different today. Instead it serves as another example to publishers that innovation on that scale, as incredible a game it may produce, simply isn't worth the risk.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

I bet the camera here is modified from a phone camera (an LG Revolution or something). My phone camera is 8 MP (HTC Inspire), which isn't shabby. It looks like they have a series of LED lights, a camera-phone camera, and more-than-one optical mouse LED/CMOS points to capture twisting and write the info on the fly instead of relying completely on software to autostitch similar data together.

The predefined depth-of-focus of about a cm and the optical mouse info would be all this has over my phone (which has a light with adjustable brightness next to the camera)... so, I was honestly expecting someone to reply 'yeah, here are some phone apps that can do this with varying degrees of quality'.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

High-resolution scanning? No.>> ^bamdrew:
isn't this something a phone camera should be able to do decently?