Adam007

Awesome, "jump-in jump-out" ideals. RS became too time consuming for me, so this game focused on a more adult audience with less time on their hands sounds great.

Someone's lack of grammar should never be used against them in an argument. It may lower their persuasion and credibility. But what's more important than proper grammar is how well you convey what you're trying to say to others. That usually includes proper grammar, but it's not always necessary.

As for exercise, it's great to do during the day, but it won't help you fall asleep if you exercise right before bed. Often it gives people another wave of energy.

You'd probably love Twelve Angry Men. It's a real classic. I'm sure that episode of Malcolm in the Middle was influenced by the movie.

Group A: Wii Sports, Nintendogs, Wii Fit, Brain Age, Wii Sports, Wii Music Group B: Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid Prime, Kirby, Star Fox See the difference here? The games in group A don't need mascots because they're not targeting gamers. They are for people who don't really play games. It's great that Nintendo makes a ton of cash making these games, and it's a joy for people who don't really play games. but for gamers, they're basically sold the games just because of the mascots. Not to mention Nintendo being comfortable with their current franchises means that they won't be interested in creating new IPs unlike what Sony / Microsoft is doing. There's nothing wrong with rehashing the characters if you like seeing your favorite gaming company swim in money. But if you like playing games, there's a line to be drawn. I like new ideas, like Pikmin. But how much can you ask from Nintendo? They're a hardware and software company. Most software companies, Sega for example, stick to one genre or set of characters. Sony and Microsoft don't have many unique new 1st party games. Our problem with Nintendo is that its 3rd party companies are making so much money with generic shovelware that we're not getting original games. It used to be 3rd party just couldn't compete with 1st party. Now, 3rd party companies have no incentive to make new types of games and characters because they're making so much money with the casual crowd.

No, you're kidding yourself. If Nintendo did the game with another set of characters, it will FAIL. You know why? Because Nintendo depends on the popularity of their main characters like Mario, or Link to boost the sales. You think as much people will buy Mario Kart if it didn't have Mario in the title? Nintendo knows they'll keep making money off these franchises as long as they make them. In the gaming world, Sony fanboys are supposed to be the cows. But you know what? I think Nintendo fans fit that suit better. Not really. In Japan, Nintendo's most sold game is Wii Sports. It's about the Nintendo brand, not the characters. But if they do have a successful set of characters, what's wrong with using them? It does help sales showing familiar characters, but it's not necessary for sales. Games like Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Brain Age have showed to be successful without mascots, and they're taking that direction with Wii Sports Resort and Wii Music. It's always been about the gameplay, not about rescuing Peach. If that's why you play your game, to rescue Peach, then I don't know why you play video games. Rescuing Peach may give the game a story, but that's the only point of it. It's about the new gameplay each time around that keeps people coming back.

Just got back from the midnight showing. I loved everything about it, aside from replacing Rachel. That didn't feel right. Other than that, the movie is amazing. Go see it.

I wasn't arguing about lending items. When I played I lent out my hats all the time to close friends. I'm just saying rares have worth. I don't think owning a party hat makes anyone special. It just represents time put into achieving a goal, like obtaining a certain level in a skill.

I agree with this in principle. I also laugh at the idea that a party hat is an accomplishment. The majority of rare owners accomplished something by buying a rare. I see your argument, but very few people still have party hats from the drop and still play. And of those, they obviously don't see it as an accomplishment. It's true rares weren't meant to become status symbols. But the moment they became worth millions, regardless of what they used to be, they did become status symbols. Some people still considered them little nice gimmicky looking hats, but they became more than that. You really had to work to own one. When you bought one, you felt like you accomplished something. For some people, getting 99 in a skill was too boring. Merchanting took more than repetitive clicking. And every rare obtained was another accomplishment. You really have to have traveled down that road to feel that. I'm not asking you to feel like owning a party hat is a big deal or makes anyone better than anyone else for having one. But have some respect for the work people put in to obtain one. People play the game entirely differently for different reasons, and to some, finally obtaining a rare was an accomplishment. The rares that exist now aren't the same as the gimmicky hats that were dropped years ago. Without getting too corny: like time changes coal into diamond, it changed hats into rares. And with rarity comes value. There's no arguing rares have value - they take work to obtain. And they mean different things to different people.

Off topic, but is a game that you can (depending on how you play it) exert yourself on, like wii sports, considered a sport?

As if we're not restricted through trading enough...? Besides, the other side could just put up 1gp.

Oh so now we're supposed to cater to the 8 year olds who lie about their age? NO. If they lied about their age to be in a 13+ forum, they better get used to seeing stuff that is aimed at 13+. I can't see how the ever caught them thread could be inappropiate for a 13+. I mean if you are offended by the stuff on their you need to go outside more. Oh and back about the 8 year olds lying about their age... If they lied about their age, I should have every right to post pictures that would be inappropitae to an 8 year old but appropropiate to a 13+, after all, they said they were 13+. Why do people keep bringing up the age 13? The only reason that message comes up is because it is required by law. These forums are still designed to be family friendly for minors of all ages. We're not like some sites where an age check is there only as liability. The admins have made it clear it's a moral decision to keep the forums accessible to all ages. Mature topics can still be discussed, just not explicitly like the situation with the "ever caught them" thread. Some people it seems haven't been reading all replies, because this has been made clear over and over.

Sounds like that's because you're on the receiving end of the deal?

A lot of people dislike that any random person appears like they obtained wealth they don't really have, devaluing the achievements people have made that actually earned the same item. My suggestion to jagex for this is simple: make lent items 50% transparent. They already have the coding for this with ghost armor, so it really shouldn't be much of a coding hassle. Thoughts? P.S.: Anyone who is currently a member, if you agree with this idea, would you mind posting it on the RSOF for me?

I think borrowed items should show up slightly transparent or something. But if you do get accused of not being the original owner, just show it in a trade, like someone else mentioned. Or switch to other rares if you have more. I was curious whether or not I'd get spammed to let people borrow my phats when I logged on f2p. Surprisingly, I don't really think the majority of f2p players even know what party hats are anymore. A few months ago I was curious about that, and asked several f2pers what they think the GE values my hat at. About half had no idea it was worth millions.

Why's everyone only questioning whether charging money is in the spirit of the game or not? Begging is a much worse offender of not being in the spirit of the game. And charging is the answer to begging. If nobody begged to be lent items, nobody would be charged. Item lending is meant for friends, just as it used to be when players trusted each other. It's not a way to randomly distribute items across the entire community to everyone who asks. And charging balances that out.

After looking at Nintendo's list of games, I'm pretty disappointed. There's so much 3rd party shovel-ware. I really just want a fun action/adventure game to look forward to. It doesn't need to be mature or anything. I'm just tired of all of the junk 3rd parties are putting out, and the overly-family oriented 1st party games. I'll enjoy Animal Crossing as much as the next guy, but Nintendo just doesn't seem to be putting out the kind of quality innovation they used to. Sure they're innovating, but they're really dumbing things down. It's like they've finally caved into the pressure 3rd parties have been putting on them. Normally 3rd parties can't compete with Nintendo's games, but now they can. And they're flourishing. Nintendo's making a profit off of them, so I guess it makes sense for Nintendo not to create the killer apps they used to that wipe out the sales of all other 3rd party games.

Interesting. Which rule is it against though? And how is it enforceable?

If I remember right... Bio - 4 English - 4 Literature - 4 Psychology - 4 Calculus - 3 I thought Calc (last year's) was impossible, but last year's psychology felt like my easiest AP, even though I took a non-AP psych.

There's a huge value to borrowing an expensive item that you'd normally have to pay for, even for a small amount of time. The fact that you're getting it for free is a bonus. Normally items are lent to friends, and the friendship is the value that covers the lending of the item. I'll gladly lend a rare to a friend, but I'd probably charge people I don't know for the intangible value of parading around with a rare for an extended period of time.

Great way of putting it. I've read Darwin awards before and laugh about them, but I still felt like something was wrong about making light of deaths. But really, it's the action that they're making light of, not the person. It feels like in this thread, while some people are making fun of the action, a lot are making fun of the person. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :)

I'm not disputing whether or not the government should be fighting terrorists. The problem is the methods they're using are beginning to infringe on the individual rights of citizens guaranteed by the constitution. When the government starts eliminating rights is when I have an issue. As for me mentioning that things have been working for the past few hundred years. Because you mentioned we only had magnifying glass type technology, I'll restate what I said. In the 90's we had similar technology to what we have now. Obviously it is outdated, but still comparable. I think back to then, and ask myself, are we better off now than we were before? Was sacrificing these specific freedoms worth it? Will sacrificing more freedoms really be worth it? My answer is no. The technology we had back then is similar enough to what we have now that we don't suddenly need to take these measures. I'm not sure I understand what you said. The government should be able to restrict our rights until we risk being put in danger from what? You're not getting flamed. Debates get heated but I haven't seen any personal attacks.

What's wrong with how the country has traditionally done things the past few hundred years? It's not like we don't have detectives. The government just needs a leash to limit what they can and can't do. I want you to specifically answer this: where should we limit the power we give government?

Maybe you're not old enough to understand all of this yet, wizzkid, but those 4 things right there scare the hell out of me. Like Bill Hicks always liked to say, "Go back to sleep America, your government is in control." It's a shame he isn't alive today to give a few lines about the situations now. I am old enough to undestand this. I have read 1984 in my English class. If America does become like that of George Orwell's 1984 then I would say you were right. But I still say that these are just Safety Precautions, why would the Government go mad with power and do what they were preventing? Why would they monitor your privacy like rats in a scientific lab? Why are you scared of those Acts, Range? Are you afraid that the Government will betray you, after all we are just millions and out fo those millions it'd be you? If they do start to go mad with power than we still have the right to revolt we are millions, no? After all, it's still Democracy and the people Depend on the Government, Just like the Government Depends on you. If this balance of Democracy were to be broken, then all Hell will be lose and what you feared will happen. War. To think, this started with just a bracelet......... Doesn't it seem like they already are going mad with power with what they're doing? We have a checks and balances system for a reason, but that's slowly fading because of partisan politics. When you have corrupt leaders, they'll obtain as much power as they can get the people to give to them. And it's not always about our country vs. other countries. They can use their power to get information about corporations or gain personal wealth. It's safe to assume some of GWB and his cronies are corrupt, without our nation's best interests in hand. My point is that the government is already gaining power it never was meant to have. And we shouldn't allow them to take it.

Ages thirteen and under aren't allowed on forums, regardless of content, because of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. I'm not positive on that, someone correct me if I'm wrong.