Ginger_Warrior

So much for "land of the free". I don't think non-Americans should brag, though. Had she won Miss UK, similar reactions would have taken place. Perhaps not as overtly through social media, but definitely in pubs and offices, people would have shown similar displays of ignorance. My housemate the other day tried to convince me that her high school once cancelled Christmas because the Muslim students "don't believe in Jesus". I informed her that, in Islam, Jesus is actually a prophet. She didn't seem bothered by this, and continued to insist that the 'Pakis' had taken over. It really shouldn't surprise people that, yes, some people really are that racist and, yes, it's usually because they're that full of paranoia. Hence the bewildering references to 9/11 and terrorism.

That statement there kind of sums up my point, really. This fallacious idea that poor people's lives are spent in nothing more than a drunken stupor. What if I told you that frequent drinking becomes more common in individuals of higher social classes, and that alcohol initiation is less likely in teenagers whose parents are unemployed? I can link to studies if asked, or you can assume good faith. Just ask if you want the former.

Plenty of people do inherit illnesses from the effects of passive (secondary) smoking. Just to be clear on that point... Like I said, I find the stereotype flawed. But that's how the argument would be played out. "Why should I be judged for purchasing a glass of wine for my 14-year old son to go with his Sunday roast at the carvery? It's the feckless, slutty, irresponsible, binge-drinking chavs that have a problem!" In politics, facts and evidence are what you want them to be. Smoking is one of few examples where the argument is irrefutable. Completely agreed. Furthermore, the term 'working class' has been demonized to the point that no-one wants to associate themselves as being part of it. I'll circle back to my original point though which is that one of the ways the working class has been demonized is by misrepresentations of working class culture, an example of which is Friday/Saturday binge-drinking. Which would undoubtedly crop up in any debate about banning alcohol ads. People would try and establish a false dichotomy between sophisticated "continental European" drinking and the local nightclub selling alcopops and vodka mixers at ten-a-penny.

The debate around alcohol is more contentious, though. I hate to bring class into the discussion but, particularly so around middle-class drinking culture which is stereotypically seen as more "healthy". I personally disagree with that stereotype because it's a) factually incorrect; and b) leans far too much on class prejudice, but that's how the debate would be played if a ban on drinking ads were proposed. Never say never of course, but smoking is almost never healthy and is linked to a ridiculous number of chronic and acute illnesses and mortalities. Surely, as well, no-one here would disagree on the central point that bans on smoking ads (not the activity of smoking itself) are in the best interests of public health, hypocrisies aside.

I'm not sure the current tutorial is particularly helpful in that it doesn't represent what RS is like to play from medium-level upwards. By giving all of the skills equal weight, it almost implies that you could spend your time training to be a certain 'class' (a summoner, for example), like you can in most other RPGs, and that you can train each skill in isolation from other skills without hindrance. It would be far more helpful if it just said, "Train combat, use combat for GP, invest into buyables, repeat ad nauseam," or whatever the efficient advice is these days. Even if that specific advice is wrong or outdated, you can still appreciate the principle behind what I'm saying: The tutorial doesn't equip players with the skills or the know how for life outside of Burthorpe / Taverley. I'd therefore be interested to know what the average lifespan of a new player's subscription would be, although working that out would be nigh on impossible unless you're Jagex and you're keeping track of such things.

There are weaknesses in EoC, no-one's really disputing that (although, I'd personally argue a caveat that there were even greater weaknesses in the pre-EoC model). What we are disputing is the way you've put the cart in front of the horse when it comes to figures. You've taken two data points across time, drawn a line of averages, found a negative correlation and assumed EoC must have caused it, simply because EoC just happened to take place between those two points. That's circumstantial at the very best, totally insignificant at the very worst. Botting activity is related to player demand, true, but it's an indirect relationship complicated by accompanying factors. That too cannot be used as a yardstick for measuring player attitudes towards EoC. There's nothing to stop me playing Devil's Advocate, and arguing that botting activity would have fallen anyway due to financial factors (for example).

What evidence? What figures? You haven't provided any, so far as I can discern from this page.

They wouldn't. We all make up white lies to make ourselves seem more attractive / intelligent / powerful / sexy. Companies are no different. Isn't journalism meant to investigate the facts from the bullshit? In any case, that's not the point being made, is it?

Exactly. Hence using the term "player" is farcical, when you can't guarantee the term even refers to real people playing the game. I've no doubt 220 million accounts have been created; I doubt very much that anywhere near 220 million accounts have been opened for benign, legitimate purposes, and the same skepticism should be given to the 300,000 figure. When Jagex can't differentiate between a bot and a human being before releasing clearly misleading and inaccurate figures about player numbers, it becomes even more important to challenge taken-for-granted assumptions, which the journalist failed to do. Lol. Sorry, I must be mistaken. I thought this was a forum, not the comments section on 9gag.

I'm not sure if this got picked up on (briefly checked this thread, can't find anything) but: RuneScape 3 attracts over 300,000 new players (Eurogamer.net) Looks like fairly lazy journalism, to be fair. 220m player accounts--bolded for emphasis--since 2001 is a laughable figure given how much botting has historically taken place in RuneScape.

I wouldn't have said your reaction was unusual or abnormal. If the break-up really had that large a consequence, I'd say it's a perfectly rational reaction to seeing her. If you haven't seen her in four years, that suggests there's no significant chance of running into her on a regular basis. If you "never want to see [her] again", surely you don't have to, apart from the odd run-in every once-in-a-blue-moon, where you'd only have to remain civil (as Draz says). If you really feel that strongly, I wouldn't suggest trying to find a way to "live with it". If you're still that involved after four years, you're not going to able to "live with it". No-one would. Is that a common problem with alcohol-related road traffic collisions? :P

I kind of already got the feeling you weren't interested in a relationship. That's why I said establish what she wants, because the only other two options are FWB or friends. But that still has to be her decision, not yours. The only way of finding out is talking. As Ring says, instead of saying "Let's be FWB@@!!!", approach it from the other direction: "I'm happy with what was going on the other night, but I'm not interested in a relationship right now".

I'd have agreed with that argument perhaps five years ago, but $100 is a massive difference in current times, when working people are experiencing falls in their wages, especially when you consider just how many consoles aren't actually purchased by the people who play them, but by parents. I don't think it's "futile" at all to palm the price difference off as an irrelevance. Money and pricing is usually the most relevant thing you can ever discuss, not only in life generally, but especially in a business environment as competitive as the video games industry.

So, she 'acted' offended, caught you off-guard and went in? [hide=] [/hide]What are you wanting from this? A relationship, or something more casual? Establish that first, on her part too.

Maybe I'm just being really thick here but... where's the connection? She wore a short skirt... so what? Why does that matter? I'm reckoning you probably put on a good shirt and some hair gel, perhaps. Maybe some perfume too. Should I start making all sorts of spurious correlations between men wearing smart shirts and male sexual promiscuity, as you seem to have done with this girl? Personally, I think she was only trying to look her best, but her choice of clothes indicates that she's clearly comfortable with her sexuality. And you don't like that for some reason. In my personal experience of human relationships, I'm reckoning it's probably intimidation. I think that's what Muggi's driving at too.

So, you're deluding yourself into believing that somehow the clothes she wore on one night at a social event speaks volumes about her personality, sexual preferences and (presumably) the chances of her cheating on you should a relationship be formed in the future... OK, well, it's your life. Good luck with that attitude. Personally, I'd take that "attire" to be indicative of confidence in one's own appearance and identity, which I'd have thought would be an attractive trait, but clearly that's not universal amongst heterosexual men by the looks of things. If you've ever worked a 13 hour shift where you've needed to stand straight with only a 30 minute lunch break, you'll know the true value of Crocs!

This really melodramatic advert appearing at the beginning of every chuffing video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfFucIuuw2I I've never played the game, but I'll come no sooner to that day even if you shove it down my ears every three minutes.

That can't be as significant news at it first seems then. Either that, or it's wildly inaccurate. At the very least, unbelievable.

Just takes practice. The more you wait, the more you rob yourself of that opportunity. The worst that can happen is she says "No" and you both carry on with your lives unchanged. The best that can happen is far more. Nothing to lose. Much to gain.

Did you happen to work at Microsoft a month or two ago before jumping ship to a different sinking ship of a company? Becuase by that logic, I guess a ton of people are going to get a PS4 then... Since there are very few people that want to spend an extra $100 for something that they won't ever use. That's why people don't like it being forced onto buyers. Yeah, you're right. I mean, I'm so far up Microsoft's ass on the Xbone that, as you say, "a month or two ago", I posted this: [hide=] [/hide]My point is: Kinect is staying. Like it or lump it. I've decided to lump it, but whining it about as if you secretly want MS to change their mind is a useless expense of time and effort. It's far, far, far too late for MS to possibly go back on the Kinect now, so it's futile even imagining they would. Buy a Wii-U, buy a PS4, buy one of those fancy cards for long-term RS membership... whatever. Move on. Neither. But then apparently I worked at MS a month or two ago, so I don't need to. Job benefits. ;)

Are you for real? Two days after Nintendo unveiled the Bargain Bucket equivalent to a handheld games console they released only two years ago, are you honestly suggesting that Nintendo don't pay attention to (what you term) "overlapping" competition from iOS/Android games?

The old DS doesn't play 3DS games. The 2DS does without the 3D-ness. It is admittedly quite confusing, especially when it's advertised as a system .

You never mentioned anything about audiences. You said very clearly that 3DS/Vita doesn't compete with iOS/Android. Do you even know what you're arguing here?

Huh? :huh: Is this one of those "English" colloquialisms? :unsure: Sorry, I thought it was quite a common expression: "About as useful as a chocolate teapot"

Not sure what people expect MS to do about Kinect. It's like asking Nintendo back in 2006 to release a new handheld device with one, touch-less screen, or asking Samsung now to release a new mobile that only calls and texts. I'm no fan of Kinect, especially not the way it's been awkwardly integrated. It's just that asking for its removal is an irrelevant request. If you don't like it, fine, it's not really there for you in the first place, because there's plenty else on offer which is designed to appeal to you. If you disagree with that, get a PS4.