Myweponsg00d

I disagree. It is completely relevant, as what makes an "awesome" setup, to me, is not 5 different LCD monitors, blazing fast PCs, and sweet-looking MAC mouses with no mousepads. A sweet setup in my world is a computer that will let me use it in a way that does not discomfort my body, allowing me to focus on the work I am doing or the game I am playing without needing to worry about my health. You guys look at a "dream mouse" and it would probably have tons of buttons and lights and other crazy features. My "dream mouse" is one that functions nicely, and feels like my hand is in a natural, comfortable position. It is clear that we value different things, and I dont think everybody needs to align themselves with my point of view, but it does worry me how extreme your desires for high-end setups are. In most of the pictures presented, I do not even see a wrist-supporting mousepad. To me, this is a travesty. I am not asking you guys to buy whole new keyboards and mouses that are the most health-friendly things on the market. But not even showing enough awareness to do yourself a favor and use a 10-20 dollar mousepad, well, its just concerning. Also people are saying I am being rude. Thats funny, because all I am talking about is concern for YOUR health. I am spreading awareness so that you can live longer, happier, more comfortable lives and you return the favor by deeming it as rudeness. Thats okay, though. Why? Because I have studied enough psychology to know that all of your responses have just come from your primitive, illogical defense mechanisms. I have shown you a news article about the dangers of multi tasking. A simple Google search of "carpal tunnel" will tell you that buying more ergonomic products help to prevent this stupidly preventable ailment. Why do you think ergonomic products develop? Why do you think safety manuals and labels come with our electronics? The problem is real, and your setups are doing nothing to sustain your health. The ammount of delusional denial in this thread is just insane. Sorry folks, but uncomfortable and unnatural computer setups poses real health issues. I used to have wrist pain when I was younger, then I started using better setups and it went away. My dad works in an office and developed carpal tunnel. He needed surgery. Did he have a moue pad? No. Was his computer situated in a strange place on his desk? Yes. Thousands of people develop health problems from computer use. It isn't made up, sorry. No matter how much your mind wishes that it WAS made up. EDIT: I would also like to add that people seem to have terrible misunderstandings of scientific research. You guys read articles and find something like "The correlation is not completely certain." and then you discredit the article as being untrue. This is how the scientific community works. Its like the creations who say "Darwin's THEORY of evolution? Well, creation is a THEORY too, then!" But, they just have a complete misunderstanding of the scientific community's definition of "theroy". The same is for the CNN article I cited. They have to say these things, because it is extremely hard, in any field of science, to make conclusive, precise, and absolutely confident claims. In studies of human behaviour, it is even harder to make these claims because of how much we don't yet know about the brain. Them telling you that a correlation is uncertain doesn't mean that there isnt a good probability of them being correct. To make concrete claims on scientific research takes decades upon decades of testing, confirming, and retesting. This doesn't mean we can ignore preliminary findings.

I just have to say that there is more than one way a skill can be disappointing/useless. Hunter is great for making money, but as far as actual game content is concerned, I must say it feels a little superficial. Hunter has a very isolated feeling to it, with most hunting being done in "hunter zones". In my opinion, it almost feels like a mini game (like...chompy hunting). But, there are some great things about the skill, dont get me wrong. I like the fact that it is a gathering skill. I like that a lot. Most games have the run-of-the-mill Fishing, Mining...maybe woodcutting. But, Hunter? I havent seen anything like that in other games. It definitely took some creativity. Unfortunately the skill....I dont know..? It just doesnt seem to be completely homogonized with the game. When I mine, I still feel like I am part of Runescape. When I do Hunter, I feel like I am playing a hunting game. Is this good? Bad? Different for different people. But I am trying to explain to you how someone COULD think Hunter was "bad" in some way. Also it may be "bad" in comparison to Slayer, where people train above and beyond the highest useful levels just because they like the skill that much. I know some people do just enjoy Hunter, but over the past few years it seems like Slayer has become nearly part of the "main" combat skills. I feel some Hunter improvements have further helped to homogonize the skill into the rest of the game. For example, the fact that you can now catch implings without any equipment has really been a great step forward, IMO. This lets you enjoy Hunter in much the same way you could enjoy Construction. People dont think "okay time to go walk around my house now", they just end up in their house as they try to use portals, make tablets, whatever. As I said, Hunter has felt somewhat isolated. Being able to enjoy your Hunter level randomly through your day, IMO, is a step in the right direction. The isolation definitely impacts the enjoyability for me. For every other skill, you bank and stuff, walking past people who are training other skills. For Hunter you stand with other Hunters and train the same skill. A little boring, and slightly uncreative, is all. It is easy to come up with any random thing and just call it a "skill" to gain experience in. Making it fit seemlessly into the game world is a little harder, and seperates a flawless skill from a less enjoyable one.

The last real high-level update was 2-3 weeks ago when we saw a new impling that you could hunt at level 91, I think? And before that, hmm, we had Agility and hmm..Prayer...Magic, do you see where I'm going? If you actually look back at the past few months you'll realise that Jagex are trying to cater for everyone, they're just focusing their time on one group for a month or two then heading to the next. Where are we now? Drifting, I say. High, mid and low-level content. I know I'd sure love to get 90 odd Hunter to be able to enjoy that, recent, high-level content. I agree with this. Theres no doubt that they are TRYING to gear some updates to higher levels. I don't disagree with that. Its just that, for awhile, I think we fell behind. The updates we've been getting have been great, but we needed them a year or two ago. Now we just need a couple more things that are like 95+ in skill level. Just to keep some players interested, IMO. We are catching up quickly, I wont deny that. If Jagex continues releasing high level stuff at their current pace, I think RS could see a revival. But, if they wanted that catch-up to happen within a year, I just think they need to pick up the pace.

So now we have to look at this game in the grand scheme of things and say "Well heres a good update, I cant wait for next year's good update!" Almost 1/4 of the year has passed. 3 months. That is a long time. People usually dont even stick with playing the same game for many years. Why should we be happy with good updates as long as they come on a yearly basis? Whats next? "Oh be quiet, theres not even 5 years since the last skill was added!" I dont see why the "year" time period is significant.

The point is that before, we were getting updates that were for "1700 total" Now, we are getting updates for "1700 total" Before, 1700 total was a minority. Not many players could use a good deal of stuff that was being released. Or, if they could, it would be quite difficult to master, and they would be encouraged to improve their skills. Jagex used to release things that WERENT a majority kind of thing. Way back in RSC, hell. We never even got updates for low level people. All the new stuff being added was being added for people who beat all the previous quests and trained up their skills. (I am using "all" quite generously) Now, most of the updates are still being aimed as level 60-70 being a "somewhat high" level still. This means they arent creating enough for the players who have been with the game for the longest. Not only that, but they arent releasing things for lower players to look up to anymore and inspire them to work towards. The best thing they have done lately was the herblore update. I feel that update gave people a huge incentive to want to push their herblore even further in order to have special things. The level range of 85-96 was also pretty on target. 85 is somewhat low in a skill these days, but its still plenty high. Then, on the top hand, to make overloads takes a huge dedication to herblore. If we could get a similar update to the rest of the skills, that would be more than plenty to give runescape enough life to last a very long time. I know you are thinking "okay well if you are happy with the update, then simply wait till they show the same attitude with other skills!" I just think its been long enough of a wait. The herblore update was a long overdue ressurection of a skill that was pointless to train in general, and even more pointless once you were at the level to make brews. Other skills need love, and need it badly. I am just worried that its gonna take another 5 years before all the other skills get something as good as overloads. By then, we will need new stuff again. EDIT: I just looked and saw that the number of maxed players is now 678. The 1000th ranked player is only 16 levels away from maxing. This is pretty ridiculous, IMO. When I first hit 85 slayer, I remember being ranked in about the top ~1k of slayers, and I was not even maxed combats, and I was not that hardcore of a player. Soon enough, there will be 1k players with ALL 99s. And there is like nothing to even do with most 99 skills. Hell, most skills even fall off before 95 or even 90. The crowd of top-end players has grown tremendously. The volume of top-end updates has simply not.

I've read through that article, and it seems that it focuses on the problem of retaining irrelevant information in your short term memory, and how processing data becomes harder (for instance, it mentions exams/tests). Comparing my exam results this year (though they are only mocks so far) to last year, when I only had one monitor, my grades have gone up over all subjects. While I'm not saying that multitasking has helped me, I am merely suggesting that it has had little to no impact. This is no proof. All you can do is look at your results, compare to the studies theyve done, and I would say your exam grades may have been even higher if you weren't multi tasking. Also there could be a correlation between actually having two monitors, and multi-tasking on only one monitor. Were you multi tasking before you had two monitors? If you were, I could see how simply having two screens instead of rapidly actively switching windows could improve your attention. This still doesn't give any information that would conflict with the studies. Also, your personal academic improvement can still outweigh negative effects. For example, if you eat nothing but Mcdonalds, you can still lose weight if you are smart about calorie counting, meal timing, and protein intake. Does this make Mcdonalds "healthy food"? No. Same thing goes for your multi tasking. Just because you saw an improvement doesnt mean the single variable you are looking at was the cause of the improvement, or that it isnt hurting you. You would need to compare it to a period of time where you eliminate multi tasking from your life.

You want to get a mousepad that has a wrist "support." I use the quotation marks because it doesn't REALLY support your wrist, per say. It just encourages your wrist to stay straight. (Similar to the way a weight training belt doesnt really DO much actively, but having it on your midsection encourages proper form) Also, you need to place the mouse at the proper height. To find the height: sit up straight, let your arms dangle straight down towards the floor. Then, take your mouse hand and bend at the elbow to make a 90 degree bend in your elbow. This is about the proper height of your mouse. It should be a tiny bit higher than this. Also, every 90-120 minutes, make sure to take 5 minutes and do some hand+wrist stretches. Nothing major. Just limber it up.

Thank you, this is exactly what I think. When I was active in Runescape, my goal wasn't to go for the new content when it came out on the first day, sure it was a bonus to have new updates, but my goals of being a member was never to be waiting for the next update, the next added thing, it was to play the content that I'm already paying for. ~Dan On another note: Although I haven't done this yet, I bet if you compare the number of high level updates from 2009 to previous years, you may actually find that the amount of "High level" content you received was relatively high. [Edit]: After looking through all of 2009 vs 2008: The amount of High level content, I'm not even including just plain good updates, I'm talking about updates that are specifically targeting people within the high level ranged, there would be 12 of these updates in 2009, whereas in 2008, there were only 7 of these, and most of them are quests, with "decently high" requirements (60+). However, just as an overall, even the quality of the updates from the past year has been sufficiently better than the ones from 2008. If you actually go back and look at many of the updates, most of the High level updates from 2009 have been in the 2nd half of the year, and most of the first half of the year was to improve the overall quality of game play, whereas 2008 definitely was heavily focused on quests and "fixing" up pvp. To add on another point, most of the High level updates that were added in 2009 are still used everyday, where as if you compare this to the high level content from 2008, some are seldom touched by high level players. How many people actually craft blood runes, how many people actually hunt grenwalls (until recently due to the Herblore update), Scarabites: the task that everyone hated. The 4 updates that people still use from then are: Armoured zombies, Corporeal beast, and the Slayer Helm and Tormented Demons. 2009 updates that people still use: Extreme/Overload potions, Living Caverns, Dragon Pickaxe, Evil Trees, High Level agility courses, Ivy, Kuradel's dungeon, and probably some other that i missed. Note: I do realize that summoning was released in 2008...but, is that considered High level content given that it targets "everyone"? What I think you may be overlooking is the relative definition of "high level" as the years go by. When slayer was released, it seemed like only the most elite of players could get 85. People simply werent as good at the game, and there werent as many "vets" who had been playing long enough to achieve high levels. But sometime in the past year or two, the player base grew a lot, and also the amount of high levels skyrocketed. I remember that max skill total used to seem like almost nobody could achieve it. Now, to even make it on the front page, you need to max your total AND train up some extra exp to boot. People are just higher leveled now. When barrows was released, 70-80 level in the combat stats was actually pretty good. I would say that the level of "rarity" of 70 defence back then is probably analogous to level 80-90ish today. The frustration comes from high level players because as the player base has grown in level, the game has not grown accordingly. Compare this to other sucessful MMORPGS where the player base maxes out one expansion, then every new piece of content added to the game is designed for the high levels who "completed" the previous expansions already. I am definitely not saying RS should be like this, but it could stand to be a LITTLE MORE like it.

Multi tasking is really that important to you guys? http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/25/multitasking.harmful/index.html This thread is just overflowing with unawareness of the physical health effects of using an improper user-input setup, and apparently you are also unaware of the mental damage you cause yourself too. Hopefully many posters in this thread are just young people who are going to mature in a few years and change these unhealthy habits.

People have been complaining more about updates in the past year (ever since they deemed it "upgrade" year) and this year has been no better so far. I would say that those of you who see no problem with the updates of the past 1-2 years simply were not around before that. When RS2 came out, we got a huge flood of fresh, interesting, and challenging updates. Almost every month brought some type of new quest or feature that the community was genuinely interested in. It is truly sad that it has been many years since the release of Slayer and Barrows, yet the whip and barrows armor are still the standard for most people. I blame RS HD. I think that the new engines and graphics are probably too complicated to deliver the type of updates we were recieving 4 years ago. I mean, back when we had much simpler graphics, updates like barrows, elven lands, etc...were all being released with no such complaints from the community. Now we are getting tiny updates that are full of glitches, and interesting content is taking far too long to come out. It is pretty interesting that, when they released Summoning, it was basically a huge flop. If you were around during RSC, you know that for years and years the players were expecting summoning to come out. Finally, it comes out, and they rushed it, didn't put enough thought into it, and the skill was basically only half done. That isn't the Jagex I used to know 4 or 5 years ago. People say the updates have been bad for a year, but honestly it has been longer than that.

I didn't really say anything about myopia. There have been plenty of cases of eye strain, headaches, and general ocular injury that can lead to vision problems. Why do you think the monitors come with safety regulations telling you how far to sit from them? If your monitor is out of your resting field of focus, you are just causing unnecessary strain on your eyes. "Well I'm gonna die some day so why not make the best of it?" You make a great point. Sounds like things could be worse for you, so why not go ahead and settle for mediocrity. That mentality is the reason that people even smoke cigarettes. "I can walk from here to my car without trouble, so I have no health problems right?" I, however, enjoy my health and put full effort into respecting my body and cherishing my time on this world. People spend 1000 dollars on a computer. A few hundred on a monitor, maybe even multiple monitors. New OS'es, top speed broadband, top of the line speakers and headphones. But when it comes to shelling out more than 10 bucks for a mouse pad, or 100 for an ergonomic-friendly desk (maybe one thats actually designed to, you know, have a computer at it? not a bathroom counter with a sink...) people cant spare the money. Truly sad. If I only had a limited budget, I would rather have a mid-end system that I can enjoy comfortably instead of a top-of-the-line system that I can use for 4 years before developing carpal tunnel.

In all the pictures thus far, nobody has put their monitor at a proper distance from their keyboard, or put their keyboard + mouse at a correct height. The OP mouse + keyboard doesnt even have any type of wrist support whatsoever. Your gadgets may be fancier than mine, but at least 50 years from now I'll still have my vision and my wrists will be un-operated on. Cant say the same for sure for you guys.

So we can't talk about if the update is good/bad? Or why we think it is good/bad? Or what type of people might like the update?

Classic. "Your point of view threatens me, so as a defense mechanism I will walk away. Making me the victor, right?" I don't know what youre so fed up with. You started the conflict. You quote my post, and then reply to it in an un-necessarily hostile tone. Then after one reply, you can't take it and walk away. "I'm done here" Lol. You sound like a woman fighting with her boyfriend. "IM DONE TALKING TO YOU!" Thinking that attitude is going to do anything. Thanks for further proving that the gamers who play by these "player made" honor system are idiots. I tried to pose a discussion, and you flame me, then I reply and you can't dignify a response. Maturity at its finest.

Most of your post doesn't make any sense. You seem to be talking about something completely different. And I don't understand fully. What I am talking about, is how in a game like Halo, the truly good people, the people who win consistently, will constantly be yelled at for being "cheap". This includes, but is not limited to, camping power ups, camping spawns, always using the same gun, etc. The people I am talking about do this to win the game, and they consistently win the game with their tactic. The people you are talking about seem to be scrubs. They dont camp effectively, and they will do stupid things like consistently run for the rocket launcher and get themselves killed over and over. This isn't a winning gamer. What I am saying is that there are two types of gamers, those who achieve the inherent object of the game, and those who achieve their own objectives. Both can have fun, I suppose, but I can only identify with the former of the two. The first type are the "professional" gamers. They play for winning, and have fun doing whatever wins the game. The other type are the "fun havers" who would likely say something like "omg that weapon takes no SKILL." or "Camping takes no SKILL!!" when they are getting their [wagon] handed to them. They don't make the game about who wins, they make the game about "who plays most like a man" or something. But honestly. If you say "its not fun to camp" I ask you: how is it fun to lose? I also don't think my analogy to cards is ridiculous at all. You play the game to win, and you only do things that enhance your chances of winning the game. While playing poker, people don't just start building a house of cards and say "But I'm doing what is fun to me!" I used the analogy to cards because it is a simplified version of what a "game" is. Todays FPS games might be a little more visually exciting than playing card games, but the basic structure is the same: an objective to achieve, and a "win" or "lose" outcome. If you aren't trying to win the game at all costs, then are you truly even playing the game? Or are you playing your own game, where you just make up some objective to play in a "non cowardly" way?

I have tried protein from Trader Joes, Costco, etc. None are good. I also tried the GNC ones: both the regular and the "wheyabolic". The best, by far, is Optimum Nutrition Gold Standard. It has the best aminos, and the price is great for the ammount of protein + other stuff they pack in there. Every flavor I have had was amazing. Right now I have a tub of the "vanilla ice cream" flavor. It is way better than vanilla alone. I have also had banana, strawberry, and cookies and cream. They are all grand.

Wow you sound like a camper. Play for score rather than fun. "Omg lets do headshots for stats weeee." If I can use "cheaper" strategies to consistently win games, why would I not do that? What is "fun" about playing in a method that would cause you a higher chance of losing? Lets compare today's games to card games. The object of poker (5 card draw) is to get the best hand possible. You have fun when you are succeeding at the objective of the game. You do this by holding onto the cards that give you the highest chance of getting a better hand. Nobody ever says "Red is boring...I am gonna throw away my aces of hearts and diamonds, so I can have cards that look more fun." Nobody says "OMG you held onto your kings? Kings are so OP and cheap..." Today is quite a different story. Camping is "boring". Rocket launchers are "lame". Hiding is "cheap". Winning is everything in a game. I think the problem is that people have too much trouble ACTUALLY winning (by topping the scores), so they pretend the goal of the game is something else. Like "regardless of score, play the most 'skillfully' " Or something like that. I always hear "omg nub, that weapon takes no skill" Why would I want to hinder my killing capabilities by using a method that makes it harder?

Um no mask in the equipment screen but you're wearing one :blink: I pretended to be a demon instead of a human back then. :P Was the Tip.It Demon, good times. So how does a Demon stop his mask from showing on the paper doll?

Something I thought of that was interesting: In real life, many people don't try to do things simply cause they are afraid of the failure. In games, people get extremely worked up when people are beating them in a FPS, and they RAGE in determination to try and beat the person. Even if his skill level is unmatchable. Granted though, people's "anger driven" motivation to win is usually unsucessful. The worst players are always the ones who get excited about things, get nervous, get angry. When I play halo with my team, we are like, at work. We keep cool and calm, and just focus on doing the task. Many people say "but this approach takes the FUN out of the game!" To which I simply say that I would have no fun if I was losing. I dont see any fun in running around like a mad man, guns blazing, if it means I will be outscored. I would rather sit back, and do everything that people call "Boring" or "cheap" and rake in the points. I guess its less "exciting" but it wins games. I am not sure what type of gamer this woman is looking for. Is she looking for the un-professional gamer? When you play cards or dice with people, the point is to win. The games are very simple and people dont say "I would rather just have fun rolling the dice REALLY hard! That would be my enjoyment of the game!" In today's crowd there are many people who seem to have their own interpretation of games. "What FUN do you have camping?" "That shotgun is so unfair! How is that fun for you?" So it is hard to determine what "gaming" truly means today, and it is hard to say what type of gamer would be able to save the world. Do we want the gamers who focus on winning? Or do we like the people who get all fuzzy inside about the "epic adventure"?

I did my first two sets of stones getting both stones at a time (not alternating), and when I got my third set by alternating, it was noticeably faster. I managed to get all 30 in a span of about 6 hours. Either I am getting more efficient or it worked (hunter and woodcutting I found to be MUCH faster). Then your account is the first I have heard of this (though, I do admit, I havent heard many people talking about it either way) I probably am just having awful luck. On my next statue I will still try the alternating method and hopefully I get the "expected" results this time.

very intriguing. Get 1 rock in 1 skill, get another rock in another skill, go back to the main skill not necessarily useful for all skills, but extremely useful for nightmare skills like hunter awesome find. I think (sadly) that the Mod might be mistaken on this issue. I rarely do farming runs as part of my daily RS activities. About 5-6 days ago, I decided to start doing some of this rock-collecting. The first thing I did was plant seeds, because I knew I needed to start doing that farming stuff since I dislike it, and it is the only skill that I cant "grind out" a rock for (i.e. you have to wait for plants to grow) Anyway, the point of this, is that I got my first farming rock on my first harvesting run. Since then, I have gotten many other rocks for the other skills. In between all this rock gathering, I still havent gotten a second farming rock. I have only done 5-6 harvesting runs (which doesnt seem too bad if my odds for that second rock are lower) but, if the odds were indeed reset to 1x, then I would have to be having some exceptionally bad luck with this second rock (it wouldnt be the first time ive had bad luck...) I mean, I dont have anything to prove this, and I would like to believe the Mod, but seeing that it would mean I am having an AWFUL bit of luck here, I'm witholding my belief atm. I do alotments and herbs btw. Mod Maz designed the minigame. That isn't proof that the game is even working as intended. I havent seen anyone say that they recieved a 2nd stone very quickly after obtaining a first stone. I have also been continually trying this method and have noticed nothing so far.

Wait...the price of an onyx is THAT high... I dont understand, why?

After listening again to this speech while training, I think this lady is on to something, but the problem I have with this particular speech is the heavy comparisons between her ideas, and ACTUAL video games that exist. I think the REAL point of what she is saying is more along the lines of the following: If life was more like a game, the world would be a much better place, and people would make a ton of progress. I can agree with this. We live in a very opressive society. In a game, every person starts off at the same level. We put in hours of effort, doing something we may or may not inherently enjoy. However, the system allows us to get frequent, reliable rewards. Reality is much different. (I am going to be writing this from an American [capitalist] viewpoint) Somebody can work his whole life, and not ever have a chance at making a true sucess of himself. A person can also basically be screwed from birth. I know, I know. You are going to tell me that mister nobody so-and-so was born into a poor black family and is now an NFL player. Well, he is the exception. Most people born into poverty live their lives in poverty. Even if they can make it out of poverty, it is a huge struggle to get any higher than the middle class. Also, it is just technically impossible for everyone to advance into the higher class. First of all, the high class CEOs make get their money from everyone below them. Wealth wouldnt exist if they hadn't taken it from the poor, so not everyone can be wealthy in our society. Secondly, there just ARENT that many jobs available with that high of prestige. If you add up all the CEO, movie star, etc...positions around the world, do you think the number would even be 5% of the population? In a society fueled by the "gaming" drive in people, everyone would be able to see progress that was proportional to the ammount of time you put in. You wouldn't go to work every day for 20 years and then lose the promotion to the new guy who just married the boss's daughter. You wouldnt have unfair progression due to starting wealth. Everyone would be equally able to see rewards, and they would have FUN working because they would feel like they are actually getting somewhere, and they will KEEP getting somewhere if they just keep trying. I have no idea how this type of society would be possible, but it is interesting to theorize about.

I believe she meant that we need people to play 21 bil hours of "World saving" games in order to save the world. I could be wrong.

Agreed there are so many [developmentally delayed]ed people there. But the morons are a minority still I full-heartedly, 100%, absolutely, positivley disagree. The majority is terrible. Absolutely terrible. The percent of the world of warcraft population who are competent enough to quickly clear the easy bosses (honestly, they ARE simple) and dominate in arenas is a tiny fraction of the playing population. It is the same in every game. Players with skill/knowledge/any intelligence can go into any random environment and simply farm the hell out of morons who run in and get themselves killed. Every now and then, I hope between games: Runescape, Halo, WoW, COD, GoW. Any time I play in a FPS I will always get 1st, 2nd, 3rd place. Am I a good gamer? No. I hardly ever even play. But I am 50 in Halo, why? Skill? Aiming ability? No. Its simply because when you are playing against the bottom 95% of the population, all you have to do is have enough god damn brains to sit back and open fire on the morons who are running around getting themselves killed. Gamers are bad. That is one thing this lady completely left out of the equation.