Ginger_Warrior

I'm not really paying attention to "metal" sounds, but I also think the medal announcer's voice could be a lot better. It's like doing a presentation and raising your voice for every single word, or receiving some notes in a lecture and putting a highlighter through all of it. When you do that, you're effectively not emphasising anything any more. It needed redoing, obviously, because it's a new game, but it needn't be so different. It's a minor point compared to some aspects of Reach which I thought were game-breaking anyway. I'm pretty excited about the new Spec Ops thing, replacing FF. FF never really was about co-operation, unless you were with a very generous friend, it was more like "Gotta kill 'em before my [bleep] teammate does LOLKILLIONAIRE". And no [bleep]ing Armor Lock in H4, thank heavens. I promised myself I wouldn't bother buying the game if AL remained in its current form. I can do without the stress-induced ulcer, because someone made me wait six seconds before allowing me to kill them after they ran at me in a straight line with an AR and ended up second best for it.

I'll honestly admit: I don't know why they've messed around with the sounds. From the trailers of H4, limited as they may be, the audio seems a bit over the top. They were near perfect in Halo 3... why change a winning formula? Because you wanted to sanitise any trace of Bungie from the game? Only explanation I've got.

The headline in today's Metro over the England result: "French get taught a lesson in resistance." I was wondering when the inevitable WW2 comments would start, should've taken bets on how long, it's so ridiculously predictable I'd have made a killing. Happens every bloody tournament and every time we play either France, Italy or Germany in the World Cup.

Moreover, how do you find it 'relieving'? As in... it's a decision you didn't want to make and now you're glad it's finally done or did you actually enjoy it? Because every person I've ever met who works as a line manager hates pretty much every aspect of firing an employee.

Pfft... soft southern Jessie's whining because they can't water their gardens with a hose instead of a watering can. Drought? Yeah [bleep]ing right...

I personally found it quite intriguing, but it's a shame that because of the humidity and lack of acclimatisation, France weren't able to capitalise on some defensive tactics which, frankly, haven't been used by any other international team apart from England on a consistent basis for about fifteen years. (Except perhaps Brazil in 2010--how did that work out, by the way?) In my eyes, a tepid encounter made all the more pointless by a shock win for the Ukraine. I'd still back France and England to beat them comfortably despite Sweden's result.

Strange tactics by the England side after going ahead. Playing two banks of four... which is of questionable effectiveness in international tournaments of this caliber anyway... but those banks were way too deep, pretty much lining up on the penalty box. You can't back off that much against Benzema, Ribery, Nasri etc., they're among the best in the world in those positions.

BTB's never really appealed to me. I feel like I have to get in a vehicle, and nerf what I'm actually good at doing in the game, so the other team doesn't sneak off with our own stuff. It's the same on Invasion Slayer... I don't want to get in a tank when I've got a sniper rifle and a DMR, but if I don't, they will, or some [bleep] player on my own team will drive it straight into a bunch of EMP blasts and have it stolen.

"Don't you just hate [...] RuneScape" ...would just about sum up the reaction of most people who frequent this board. The R-word doesn't get used much around here. It annoys me, for one. ~Mr. Ginger "Who on earth could Cheat possibly be talking about" Warrior

I wonder how people would be interpreting Nintendo's conference had they left the good stuff--Pikmin 3, for example--until last. It was a terrible conference, there's no getting away from it, but it could have been made "less bad". The fact so much of E3 went down as 'casual gaming' I don't think is necessarily a bad thing either. Yes, it is true that the majority of those watching were what you'd crudely define as 'core gamers', but platform holders need to appeal to investors as well, and to do that, they need to sound professional and very profitable, hence the dreary sales talk. Only an idiot would use a stage as big as that to show off some new, fancy toys rather than focus on what brings in money so you can afford to develop those toys in the first place. Whether people want to accept it or not, Wii Fit and Sports made lots of money. No-one on this board, Zybez or RuneHQ will give a flying [bleep] about them, and nor should we, but it was a massive success story from a business perspective. PS: This might have been mentioned before... I'm not trawling through 11 pages of knee-jerk reaction. But it can't have been just me who saw the Halo 4 playthrough and thought "Oh, hello Metroid Prime: Echoes" when MC picked up the light weapons and used the heat visor, can it? I honestly felt like I was meeting an old friend.

An article about sexual harassment against women in online gaming, on the BBC website today, after a report on its World Service was aired on Saturday. I found it very interesting, and regardless of where you stand on the issue, I reckoned most people here would be as well.

It's remarkably easy to explain why a business feels the need to do everything possible to make as much money as possible, actually. You might not agree with it, and neither might I, but it's very easy to understand the rationale.

Yeah, Wii U's what I'm looking mainly for. For the Xbox, more information will probably be released about the Skyrim Dawnguard DLC, and they'll no doubt use the opportunity to plug Halo 4, which we could all learn a bit more about. Also wanting to discover their vision for the Arcade, they're really targeting that market with the new Arcade NEXT. MineCraft is the first game to break CoD's stranglehold of the Xbox charts since Black Ops and MW3 were released.

That's a bit of a pointless question, isn't it? I'd weigh the benefits of paying an extra 22k per year versus my expected income from completing my degree. I'd also look to transfer elsewhere for a cheaper alternative, if it existed. I might be upset with my university, but an absurd reaction would be to lash out at some arbitrary third party. I also wouldn't be selfish enough to think that someone else should pay for it instead of me. Except they're not expecting someone else to pay off their education. When you subsidize education, you are investing in the students who will go on to work higher paying jobs, pay more taxes, and pay for their tuition by subsidizing the next generation of students. It's a much better system than making students come out of university with 100k+ in debt. The only people who benefit from that are the banks. [/hide]Is your system better? Can you find evidence that Canadian graduates are more productive than American graduates? What about against students that take out loans and support themselves through college? From my experience, students that are given a free ride (or very cheap one at that) tend to change their majors more, graduate on time less, and take college less seriously (like flunk out or party more). For example, each of my siblings has had to pay for their own schooling. The four of us so far have all (or will have) graduated on time. The two that have graduated already have jobs and aren't unemployed or living at home. Compare that to several of our friends whose parents are footing the bill, who have changed their majors, flunked out, or changed their schools. Some even have graduated and moved straight into their parent's basement. http://www.theclause.org/2012/04/4158/ Also, my tuition has increased by about $1000 / year since I started. You can bridge that gap by working a couple weeks at a summer internship. It's near enough universally accepted that future economies will become heavily skills-based as jobs become more technical. For countries to prosper, they need as many people going to university as possible to prepare them for life in the modern workforce. Many jobs which were previously taught on-the-go are now degree-level entry. Yet you would disincentivise higher education for families earning lower incomes so that they 'flunk out' less. I find that contemptible, and I also think you've made a correlation between subsidised education and "laziness" which you haven't properly established as anything more than coincidence (you referred to 'several friends'--hardly a valid sample size for entire country). I know plenty of people who didn't go to university at all, who went straight into employment at 16, who 'flunk out' just as much as students who've had their tuition fees subsidised.

Yeah, I use those terms in everyday life. However, if a Christian asked me not to because it's blasphemy to them, then I wouldn't purposefully offend them by continuing. I'd just use those terms when not in their presence.

You don't necessarily need to back up an assertion with "sources". It's an opinion. It just helps if you use facts to reinforce the legitimacy of opinions, but they aren't vital... Can we come off this roundabout and talk about the point in hand?

Then they're wrong to dismiss it without ever regarding it in the first place, as much as you're naive for just accepting their reasoning without ever even considering it for yourself. Some articles are credible, others are not. The review system sorts between the two very well and very stringently. If there's information on Wikipedia which hasn't been suitably referenced, then remove it without prejudice. If there was information on the Tip.It main site which had been incorrectly placed there by a Crewbie, would you report it to the Crew (constructive), or just [bleep] about how bad Tip.It is on other websites where those responsible for editing said article are unlikely to ever see your criticism (passive aggressive, not helpful)? EDIT: The point that this post is in reply to has been edited out of its original post.

Yes. Oh god, yes they do. I'd say other gaming communities are better than RuneScape's, which I think suffers more than its fair share of 'problem players' (not this site per se, but RS generally), but yeah, other communities whine just as much. Not just gaming either. All communities think the people above them are useless, and that they'd do a better job.

Awesome video! Classy, very classy.

Critical hits, Pokemon. That reminded me.

What would the consequences be on your lifestyle if you did need an operation for sure? Would you be able to carry on like you are now or would you have to stop doing certain things?

Armor Lock, Halo. I've got a reputation with friends for being well-disciplined compared to most other people when they play FPS games, and the competition turns them into some Hulk-like figure where nothing short of full body mutilation would satisfy their sudden onset of blood lust. By contrast I stay very calm and think things through before jumping in, rather than acting on impulse. Until someone I'm all but guaranteed a kill on Armor Locks. Then I lose it, and I have to stop playing because I won't calm myself otherwise. What kind of retard puts an 'Invincibility Mode' into a [bleep]ing FPS anyway, and then puts it into every single playlist bar two?

You cannot currently request to be euphanised under any circumstances, if that's what you meant, although this is constantly being challenged in courts and public opinion on both sides of the issue are strong. You can ask not to be resuscitated, however, athough HCPs still have to attempt everything else as usual to prevent fibrillation/braindeath in the first place, and if the patient refuses even that treatment without understanding the consequences, they can be deemed under the Mental Health Act to be causing serious neglect to themselves and detained anyway. So, yeah, frankly speaking: the options available for heavily disabled people to end their life are extremely limited, and I'm assuming that's pretty much the same in all English-speaking countries. I have to admit, I work every day with people who suffer dementia, and the usual mental health problems which are associated with dementia, and the idea of artificially extending their life so they literally can't die makes me deeply uneasy. I understand we should always attempt to extend life expectancy, but not if that means unnecessary suffering as well. There has to be a consideration for quality of life, not just life itself.

They made a game that for a long time has been firmly the second best selling product in their market sector. That deserves praise, but perhaps praise that was more deserved for the work they did ten years ago rather than the work they're doing now. A lot of their success came from them being one of the first free MMORPGs rather than any tough decisions. We can all release a product into a market no one's competing in, but still has plenty of interest, although perhaps we couldn't do it as well as Jagex did. I think modern day Jagex hasn't done enough to diversify RuneScape, or fix some of the issues that were in the game from day #1. In fact, far from diversifying the game, they've actually made it all very focused around hiscores, XP rates, skillcapes. RuneScape abuses its own Skinner box more than any game I've ever known, and I think that's a weakness rather than a strength. You look at some of the great RPGs, and they aren't "great" because they take stupidly long amounts of time to reach the "post-game". They're great because they're strong in other areas where RuneScape is far weaker. I'm actually hoping the combat rework will be very radical and that it redefines RuneScape completely because otherwise, I think RuneScape in two or three years time will be a very pedestrian game compared to its competitors. So all in all, I voted "Inbetween". They need to do something big, and there's signs they might be.

There's a lot of illnesses out there, horrible, horrible illnesses, which aren't necessarily caused by old age, but the prognosis gets worse as people grow older. Simply reversing the aging process wouldn't cure people of those diseases, it would just extend their suffering. Imagine suffering a stroke, losing half your body permanently, and then reversing in age so you live much longer than you otherwise would, and all that time the body is getting weaker and weaker as a result of subsequent TIAs/further strokes... I personally wouldn't find any point in that. I'd rather focus on ensuring that person can live a fulfilling and independent life, so far as that's possible, until they die a natural death, than dragging it out for no good reason.