Adam007

nope its for the buddy list on the wii hub and thanks mod i didnt notice since i was afk for about 3 hours on my wii :lol: Na theres no point besides messaging. Trading miis is pretty useless. Online games require different friend codes. Speaking of trading miis, did you get my new wave of famous mii's I just made sent to your parade?

I like the logic of it all. Send in more troops so we can get our troops out!

For some reason with laptops, as they get older, their performance drastically drops. This doesn't happen with desktops. But for some reason, even if I never turned the laptop on, it just seems like with age they get really slow and run-down. My brother's laptop just got re-imaged a few months ago. He didn't use it since then. I turned it on today and it's crawling - yet it has the same out of the box software setup. I just don't understand how hardware can age? I've had three laptops and they all faced this same fate. When I get a computer for myself next year for college, I'd like to get a laptop, but with the short life expectancies (~3 years) I've had with them, it doesn't seem worth it. Could anyone explain this to me?

a blue p hat is worth $600,000 if you sold each mil gp seperatley on ebay... ugh i havte it when people say its just pixeld Learn to spell for a start. Any why should it matter how much an item is worth on Ebay..? When it's completey against Rs rules. I can't believe you actually mentioned that. Legally or illegally, that doesn't change the fact that time is money. If one dies in runescape, they get annoyed because their time was lost. Yes they lost items, but they'll need to spend more time getting them back. And most people value time pretty highly (although on rs, its less than you'd think). Whether or not an item is pixels, whether or not it really exists, doesn't matter. You're pouring time into this game, and if time is stolen from you, or you lose or waste time, there's bound to be an emotional response, just because time exists both in video games and in real life. That's what ties the two together, and that's what creates value out of 'mere pixels.'

LGBR, you're comparing a port of a game made over 10 years ago and comparing it to a new game for the PSP. I mean I could take a picture of tetris playing on the PSP and compare it to a good looking DS game. It's all relative.

Thanks remoteman. :)

Shows how much you know. Again, I refer back to what I said about caring about who games are 'for'. You must be very insecure. You feel the need to play games for 'adults' even though I assume you are a child. Are you trying to prove something by doing that? i mean what i say and im meaning that those games are for kids.... people aged 13+ shouldnt buy a DS its only games for kids as i said because the story and the graphics make you feel like you play a kids game not a game like final fantasy or others. Eias, you've said so many ridiculous things, I'm not going to bother wasting my time countering them. I think just by reading them people get the point - it doesn't need explaining why. Just for one you said that Nintendo has kiddy games but not good games like Final Fantasy. Well news flash, it has final fantasy. I could go on explaining why maturity doesn't explain the quality of a game to you, but your mind's closed on the issue. You've been molded by your friends or advertising to think that games are only fun if they have realistic graphics and some form of violence. MORE GRAPHICS YES!! (Care to explain what you mean by more graphics?) - Time. Although I have never played a DS, the loading times for a friends one didn't seem that much faster than a PSP. Roughly, i'd say to load up MGA:2 on my PSP takes ~25 seconds. Then a level load will take ~10 seconds more. That's not really a whole lot. Atleast compared to old gameboys. I'd much rather have one good mario game than 50 MGS games. What's quality to you isn't quality to me. I happen to enjoy games like the New Super Mario Brothers and the 3d Mario game that was redone for the DS. I can't believe you're basing an argument off of that. Mario games define quality. And that's my opinion. Just don't use your opinions to try to back up an already invalid point. And are you sure you really mean to use the word psychology there?

Thanks zsandmann. I've heard of rares compared to stocks before, but never made the connection with what would happen if rares were actually removed so clearly like that. :)

So, if the US doesn't spend any money on defending against terrorism, there wouldn't be terrorism. Now it's just a never ending cyclus. :? We should still defend against it to a degree. I just don't think it should be the country's number one priority, which it seems pretty close to.

If we haven't yet used those tools to find out how existence came to be, what proof do you have that science and reasoning can prove it? I'm not saying that they can prove it. I'm saying that if it were to ever be proven, it would have to be through science/logic, which is kind of an obvious statement. (Oh, and sorry I forgot to reply to that one thread awhile ago you commented on. I did a lot of thinking on my reply though - I just put off my reply til the thread died.)

Yeah. Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification. Didn't know for sure those existed. I still disagree that atheism is a religion. Science and reasoning can prove how existence came to be. We just haven't used those tools to find out yet. If anything finds the answer, it'll be through science. Science doesn't discount religion. The thing is nothing about religion so far is scientific. We just are unable to use science to prove or disprove it - that doesn't make religion unscientific since we don't know.

I guess you haven't tried playing the DS. Well first of all, the graphics aren't bad. They're between N64 and Gamecube capability. If you're seeing games with bad graphics, blame it on the software, not the hardware. Also, it's just your opinion that the stylus control is a gimmick. Since games completely revolve around it, and they work well with it, I think we can safely say it's lost the 'gimmick' aura people worried about before it came out(Nintendo has had plenty of poor gimmicks - but this isn't one of them). I mean just compare games between the DS and PSP. On the DS we have Brain Age, Wario Ware, Nintendogs, and plenty other completely new, fun, and innovative titles. PSP seems to be focused majorly on shooter type violence games. I admit I haven't looked into their library because it hasn't interested me enough, so I could be wrong on that. But my point is that the DS and its games are innovative and it's not gimmicky.

You claim jagex wouldn't release new harder quests because the masses with quest capes would complain? The people with quest capes are majorly in the minority. I think you took a giant leap of connecting two ideas that don't really connect. If jagex releases too many easy quests, it's not because they're doing it to have lots of people own quest capes. They never really released many hard quests anyways, before or after the quest cape. You're getting upset over a nonexistent issue. They've already put in plenty of difficult quests and I have no doubts that we haven't seen the last of them just because they put in a quest cape. I mean the people who already own them have done some really hard quests too. I think you're assuming the worst of them.

I bought a DS to play games. I don't need a mini entertainment system in a gaming system. If you're buying a portable and you want an Ipod that can play mediocre games, go with the PSP. If you want top quality innovative and fun games, DS. It's really as simple as that.

Has it always been the media's job to terrorize people? I'm telling you - the government gets so much control just because they play on people's irrational fears that the media exploits. Government has always been the biggest terrorist Well that's not news. The government created "THE TERRORISTS" and they haven't hit us in years. I heard in a poll that 60% of Americans believe they'll get hit by terrorism this year though. I wonder why? Especially since there's only been one attack in such a long time span. People are irrational and worry about the wrong things. And it doesn't help that they sit in their houses watching 24/7 news stations that seem like they must be paid off just to scare and worry Americans. Then Americans allow the government to waste our money combatting our biggest risk - obviously terrorism, so we invade terrorist countries like Iraq. Because Iraq was behind 9-11, of course. Get everyone under one big "TERRORIST" label to make it even more convenient. So they're spending all our money fighting nonexistent terrorists, while funds for educations, the sciences, and other good uses for money are lowered in priority so we can defend ourselves against all of the terrorists trying to get us.

But it's a topic that just has to be recreated over and over again because it's one of the most intellectually stimulating subjects one can ever debate about!

That's circular logic. You're assuming our existence has to have meaning. And you're also assuming without having an after life, existence also has no meaning. Both things that aren't true necessarily. I think you'll find most people believe the point of your existence is to live each day to the fullest, which has nothing to do with any after-life. That mindset is so popular because what if there is no afterlife? You'd have wasted your one shot of consciousness waiting for it. Two more false statements. You're on a roll now. Atheism isn't a religion. Atheism is just a convenient word that describes someone who has no religion. You're playing on semantics. And no - religion is not synonymous with science and reason, even if it seems that way to you. If we can't prove religion created all that exists, we can't assume it did.

Has it always been the media's job to terrorize people? I'm telling you - the government gets so much control just because they play on people's irrational fears that the media exploits.

What's so intellectually debatable about this? Hasn't this topic been beaten to the ground already anyways? I'm sure there's an already existing 20+ page long thread just because everyone has an opinion about it. That doesn't make the issue interesting at all. Obviously jagex is out there to convert f2p to members. They're not 'forcing' anyone. They're just giving people huge incentives to become members. By being f2p, they have no room for complaint because they're acknowledging they're not paying for the full game - only a trial of the full game. They shouldn't expect anything more. End of thread.

Honestly though, what do you expect to get?

Are you talking specifically about the lack of religious threads? No, I'm talking specifically about the lack of argumentative threads about things that matter to people in real life. An argument about a video game subforum pales in comparison to an ethical argument like Saddam's hanging (the last decent thread here imo, and it was locked). I agree. The argument I'm in right now is pretty nonsensical to be honest. I mean I'm holding my ground but overall it has pretty low significance compared to what we could be talking about. I'm just not seeing so much intelligent conversation on most issues. I think a topic needs to start off with some informational prompt that leads to discussion. A thread is pointless if there isn't room for real discussion and debate in my opinion. Threads that are specific questions (like: "What kind of engine should I buy for my new car?") have little merit to me.

Being the smart person you are even you would know that jagex don't make the prices money hungry players do. They don't have a use now, greedy players will use anything to make money because they are too lazy to put any effort into skilling and raising money that way. These so called are still meant to show how long you've played for you can't even show that now and yes a lot of people care what they were brought into to game. They have no use now other than exploitation.[/quote Not a fan of capitalism, eh? These kinds of things exist in the real world and people aren't freaking out about them. If you came to America early and got free land, it's now really expensive. I could list more analogies, but my point is that some things get rare over time, even if they were originally not intended to be an expensive item. Also, your argument that party hats are greedy items is completely subjective. Are stocks also for greedy people? Some people just enjoy making money by merchanting. Is the act of accumulating money greedy? You kind of need money to function in this game, and sorry if merchanting is the most efficient way to make it. I'm not going to sit at a coal rock for hours on end chugging away earning it the 'hard-working-man's' way. Party hats have nothing to do with being lazy. I don't think "Oh, I'd like a billion gp but I don't want to earn it myself so I'll buy party hats." That's just a weird train of thought. I have party hats, and it's convenient, but you're really just attaching all of these bad connotations to them because they seem so distant and unfair to you. I can't even believe I typed all of this out to be honest. It's such a dead argument. I'm not going to argue this point any further. Not to be arrogant, but just assume any point you bring up on this issue anyone can counter, because through my years of posting here, I've seen it all countered.

But the wilderness isn't illegal, like your example was. It's encouraged, and the sole purpose of pking. Pking, whether you like it or not, is central to the game. And people pk for items and for fun. Taking out the items part kind of makes pking artificial and faked.

I first planned to but figured it works fine like this. Feel free to if you want to though. I would have done it if people started where the line ended on the previous image and kept the same width. Thanks about the link too - didn't notice that. People have the general idea without needing examples though.

If you're not good with people, I think being a cashier would be great, since it'd help you get better people skills. And honestly I'd imagine most people who aren't 'people persons' would prefer to be one - they're just not so great socially.