Brasil

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Dammit! More like Counterstrike?? No stealth?? I really like how " it's all about learning the maps, knowing where the weapons, armor and ammo are." Why even call it Goldeneye at all?[/quote] That quote was referring to the [b]Deathmatch[/b]. And that's what the GoldenEye 007 Deathmatch was: "learning the maps, knowing where the weapons, armor and ammo are." [quote]Anyway, I hope that IGN was just saying random crap there and nothing else. In the end I'm probably gonna rent the game and see if I like it enough to buy it, but for now I'm getting only more ambivalent about it.[/QUOTE] How can it be random crap if it's precisely what GE's Deathmatch was?

[QUOTE=Mitch]Why was I given this life When I just want to take it away?[/QUOTE]Go for it. Do us all a favor and just do it. You're obviously never going to be happy on any level at all, and you love to wallow in self-pity, always angry with the world, never able to connect with anybody on any real level, so why not just go through with it? Why are you unable to end that which you despise? Regarding the poem, very eh. You've beaten that subject to death and that was a long time ago, Mitch. It's time to move on and develop new material. Angst/anger/sadness/regret/pain gets you nothing--at least, the way you write about it. I think one work that would help you immensely in showing you how to handle sadness and pain is..."Fat Girl," I believe. The author's name escapes me at the moment, but it's a short story about a hideously overweight girl coping with her misery. Read it. EDIT: Also, try writing sometime other than 5 in the morning, because nobody writes coherently at 5 am.

I figured I'd check-up on Rogue Agent. IGN had a closed-door hands-on, apparently, on May 13: [font=Arial][size=2][quote][b]May 13, 2004[/b] - Behind closed doors today Electronic Arts showed off its potentially AAA James Bond game, [i]Goldeneye: Rogue Agent[/i], the first-person shooter that makes you feel good for being bad. [/size][/font] [font=Arial]The idea behind [i]Goldeneye[/i] is based on fundamentals, getting the small things right, and building from there. So when we saw and played the PS2 and Xbox games today we saw past the slow framerate and the chunky graphics and into the game itself. EA has stated that it's confident about its technology, so that by getting its basics down tight, the rest will follow. The demo we saw and played shows that idea through. As a rogue agent, an M16 agent who's been exiled for brutal behavior, you join Auric Goldfinger's criminal organization, and in a civil war that is started between the two criminal factions, you lose an eye. It's replaced by new technology that gives you enhanced abilities, such as greater vision, greater abilities, and enhancements that can be upgraded throughout the game. It's your "goldeneye." Being able to wield two weapons, each independently controllable, in addition to a constantly upgradeable eye, your villain becomes a powerful force in the Goldfinger organization. The movie demo we were shown was impressive indeed, but it put a high gloss on a game that's still very much in development, and has more than great potential. EA has assembled a top-notch team of developers and designers, snatching personnel from Ubi Soft's [i]Tom Clancy[/i] teams, Bungie, and Konami, among others, and together they have focused on creating a game that's highly dynamic, intense and intelligent. We played a single-player mission that takes place in Fort Knox, and we also played in a four-player LAN game in the Moonraker level. [b]The single-player mission puts you on track to escape a crumbling base, starting with you seeing a crashed helicopter stuck in a crumbled rooftop, and James Bond, of all people, dangling from one hand above a 10-story atrium. You walk over and push him off, thinking he's dead (but you know Bond, he'll never die).[/b] Descending down several sets of stairs, gaggles of enemies show up, showing off the E.V.I.L. AI system the team has spent so much time on. Enemies are based on a node system, meaning that the more pressure you apply to them, the more aggressive they respond. [b]Enemies duck and hide behind objects, and the upper tier enemies actually use lower ranked enemies as human shields[/b]. Using a range of weapons, including 357 pistols, P95s (a modified P90 that's a great sprayer), assault rifles, heavy machine guns, missile launchers -- all of which are over-the-top in their design -- as well as concussion and napalm grenades, you descend down a set of stairways through heavier and heavier soldiers. The set design is intensive. There are tons of obstacles to use for you and enemies to hide behind, and ducking and hiding is recommended. There is no stealth or wall clinging because EA decided this game wasn't about stealth, it's about all-out combat. Any weapon you see in the ground can be picked up and used. Just think! You can run around with two assault rifles and literally clear the room. Players can engage in close-combat melee, handling their weapon butts to attack an opponent with, or they can use their fists, as long as a single hand is open. When you stun an enemy with a punch, you can then grab them and do two things: either swing them around and use them as a human shield, or throw them ahead of you. That could mean you throw them off a ledge, or into a explosive barrel, which you can later shoot, or into a crowd of exacerbated enemy fodder. The multiplayer level I played enables you to explore the traps and design of the environments with far greater precision and attention. It's all about learning the maps, knowing where the weapons, armor and ammo are. The level is actually quite massive, including multiple split stories, hallways and deathtraps. There are numerous control panels with switches in them that explode wall panels, drop huge levels, and more. [b]In one particular area, a circular sub-level, you can trick enemies into entering into it, and then hit a button trapping them down in the chamber. The switch launches a rocket, the exhaust of which burns you or your opponents to a crisp. It's quite satisfying[/b]. The online is for both Xbox and PS2, though EA LA is still filtering ideas for the final styles of gameplay it wants to deliver. Some standard online modes of play include deathmatch and team deathmatch to name a few. EA is really aiming for online game more like [i]Counter Strike[/i] than anything else, with team-based objectives, such as, say, pitting the Bond villains versus MI6 agents, or Bond villains against Bond villains. In short, while [i]Goldeneye: Rogue Agent[/i] is still not ready to graphically wow the world, but the fundamental gameplay is indeed looking sharp and exciting, if you can get around the chunky graphics and rough control. The final game, we're told, will run at a solid 30 FPS, which is OK with us, though 60 is preferrable. The combination of duel weapons wielding, grenade throwing, and multiple deathtraps creates a realm in which players can return again and again to a level and never experience it the same way twice. That's what we're really looking for in a game, something that sparks our imagination and makes us forget all the bad games we've been played so much of. This looks like the game to happily distract us for some time, indeed.[/QUOTE] [/font] [font=Arial]Looks like there are the usual early development graphical hiccups, but really, that's to be expected from most FPS at this stage of development. IGN seems optimistic, which when you think about it, is a rarity, so that's getting my interest piqued. I've bolded some very neat parts, as well. The Moonraker deathmatch level looks to satisfy the GE Gameshark hackers who tried to get in there and only found glitchy, minimal success. ;)[/font]

Okay, picture this. We open on Barbie and Britney Spears, both clad in black sneaksuits, perhaps a throwback to Metal Gear Solid. They're infiltrating a mall in the dead of night, most likely to plant naughty sextoys around the Christina Aguilera or Malibu Stacy action figures. The CG is only so-so; it looks like it was made by Capcom in their early RE2 days, so Barbie and Ms. Spears look just a little bit plastic. We don't notice, however, because they look that way in real life. The camera takes a few sweeping motions over the mall complex, then in true hackneyed James Bond imitation, the camera swings in behind Barbie or Spears, depending on who you choose to play as. Yes, that's right, folks, this game is a buddy adventure, similar to Jak and Daxter or Ratchet and Clank, only it doesn't operate that well. It handles more like Whiplash, with clunky controls and some really "off" platforming. Naturally, being a buddy game, Barbie and Britney have some nifty martial arts combo moves that are sure to get the High School Freshman boys excited. The moves come just short of lesbian pornography, with Barbie and Britney intertwining with each other to pull-off bizarre acrobatics. Think Chicago but without the quality, style, visual appeal, talent, musical ability, etc. Okay, so it's really nothing like Chicago, but that's the best comparison I could come up with. Once we infiltrate the mall after what seems like an eternity of poorly placed platforms and (unintentional) malfunctioning elevators, and after the Freshman boys have lost interest after realizing their fantasies aren't going to come true in this game, we find the mall to be bland, very bland. All of the shops are nondescript StarBucks, with a McDonalds thrown in for a bit of variation. Now, as with any [i]good[/i] title, there must be an insanely high level of background interaction. This isn't a good title. This title doesn't even pass for bargain bin material. The backgrounds are all pre-rendered, and there is no interaction at all. See that chair? You'd like to sit down in it? Tough sh-t. Want to trash that StarBucks? Sorry, not this game. Want to drown your character in the fountain in the food court? Not happening. There would be absolutely nothing to do in this mall except for your mission, which doesn't really differ all that much between characters. The objective change is merely a pallette swap. Malibu Stacy and Christina Aguilera are exactly the same in-game model, to save on production costs, cause we all know this game's funds went into getting permission to use Ms. Spears' likeness. After planting these sex-toys, a timer goes off, with the voice from the Resident Evil games. The mall is about to be destroyed. We only have three minutes, and getting to our objective took around ten minutes. Barbie and Britney ignite marvelously, screaming bloody murder and through the new innovation of Smell-O-Vision, we get to smell the burning plastic. The game fades out, the credits start to roll, with Ms. Spears' Hit Me Baby One More Time playing in the background. After the 20-minute credits are finished, the game fades out entirely, and we're left with someone giving us the finger. Retails for 50 bucks, all systems, online for PS2 and Xbox, but no online support at all, and no extra content ever available for download. Worst. Game. Ever. *** Did I do good?

[quote name='wrist cutter']Bullies exist primarily in elementary school, and a bit in middle school. And usually they don't do anything severe enough to cause psychological damage. They may be bullies, but they're not even in the double digits yet. It's not like they're going to do anything other than call you names. Any "damage" they inflict at such an age will be soon forgotten.[/quote] First of all, wrist cutter, never minimize a bully's effect, all right? At any age, elementary, middle, high school, whatever, a bully can be extremely harmful to a child in the formative stages. The elementary age falls under the Erikson Life-Span stage of "Industry versus Inferiority." I'll quote what that means. [quote]It corresponds approximately with the elementary school years, from six years of age until puberty or early adolescence. Children's initiative brings them into contact with a wealth of new experiences. As they move into the elementary school years, they direct their energy toward mastering knowledge and intellectual skills. At no time are children more enthusastic about learning than at the end of early childhood, when their imagination is expansive. [b]The danger in the elementary school years is developing a sense of inferiority, unproductiveness, and incompetence.[/b][/quote] I've bolded the most important phrase here. Now, given this information, what do you think a bully will do to a child's psychological make-up, especially in the elementary years? I could go on and talk about middle school and high school if you'd like, "Identity versus Identity Confusion." [quote]In my honest opinion, any bullying that occurs after middle school is pretty much because the person being picked on is a dork. If you're a victim of bullying, it's because you're asking for it in some way. Even if you enjoy computers (by which I mean programming/web design type stuff, not AIM), you won't become an instant bully target. It only occurs because you appear really nerdy and/or have really funny reactions to being picked on.[/QUOTE] "A dork"? Surely, WC, you're joking. Do you have any idea what goes on in high school? I mean, seriously. Do you [i]honestly[/i] believe that the victim is somehow at fault for getting picked on? That...an effeminate boy playing with the noncompetitive girls in gym class somehow [i]deserves[/i] to be called a ******? WC, surely you're not [i]that[/i] ignorant? [spoiler]Ah...responding to sarcasm is fun, lol.:p[/spoiler]

[center][font=Courier New][size=3]?Marxist Pythonianism and You?[/size][/font] [/center] [font=Courier New][size=3]Introduction:[/size][/font] [size=3][font=Courier New] May I be the first to congratulate you on the purchase of this book. We are thrilled that you chose ?Marxist Pythonianism and You? over the other normal titles out there. But, please be aware that ?Marxist Pythonianism and You? does not include the material that the other normal titles do. This book, ?Marxist Pythonianism and You,? will not solve your financial woes, nor will it make you a Casanova with the ladies or men, depending on your gender and sexual preference, as we do not discriminate at all, in accordance with the bylaws of our National charter. But in this book, you will find very useful tools and information that you can utilize to improve your life, provided those areas that you require assistance in do not inhabit monetary issues or sex or lack thereof.[/font][/size] [center][font=Courier New][/font] [/center] [size=3][font=Courier New] But, this book will be a most excellent guide on your path to spiritual enlightenment. Of course, Marxist Pythonianism is not a cult, despite what some outside parties may profess. We at MP Press do not seek to convert you, as conversion is a violation of the principles set forth in the bylaws of our National charter. We seek to instruct and guide, and occasionally, journey to a neighboring town to engage its citizens in a healthy game of Broomball or a rousing philosophical debate.[/font][/size] [size=3][font=Courier New] For the purposes of this text, we have divided it up into three sections.[/font][/size] [font=Courier New][size=3]Section One is dedicated to the History of Marxist Pythonianism, as every member of our cul?er, [i]organization[/i], must be aware of the processes behind its creation and also, be familiar with the founding fathers of Cinnaminsonia, the nation of the conception of Marxist Pythonianism.[/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=3]Section Two handles the philosophies, psychologies, ideologies, and worldviews of the Marxist Pythonian. Section Two may be difficult to digest, though, so we have requested and been granted the assistance of such great thinkers as Marx (Bros), Monty (Python), and a handful of well respected and world-renowned cognitive psychologists.[/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=3]Section Three is a collection of essays from the leaders of Cinnaminsonia, the founder of Marxist Pythonianism, and again, a handful of respected and dignified bigwigs in the field of entertainment and psychology.[/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=3]Now that I have outlined the three sections of this book, let?s begin. Please turn the page.[/size][/font]

Now what would have been the icing on the cake is, if you had made the rhyme scheme of the poem itself ABA CAB B. [i]That[/i] would have been a very nice subtlety to illustrate the obsession with the Blood Code your poem talks about, hehe. But otherwise, fun stuff. Loved how you poked fun at the outraged politicians/parents (Now I apply you to all things in life/ABA CAB B, I carved your initials into my arm with a knife/You appease my conscience when I brutalize my wife).

Awesome. Just awesome. I had the pleasure of watching this Rob Reiner movie a few nights ago. You think it's a chick flick based on the premise and advertisements, but it's anything but a chick flick, heh. The level of satire in it rivals Reiner's This Is Spinal Tap, and the way the characters poke fun at themselves through the fight scenes and dialogue is hilarious! It's just a fantastic movie, and has something for all ages, I think. Anyone else feel the same way? Anyone feel differently? Though, I can't imagine why someone wouldn't like this movie. But yes. Thoughts?

I checked the GameSpot Hands-On. They mention Xbox Live, so I can assume that Cube is the only non-online version. Of course, they could utilize the broadband modem for LAN mode, but I don't think they're going to. While details on the singleplayer mode are slim, it sounds promising. [QUOTE]TimeSplitters: Future Perfect will be the first game to feature a real, story-driven single-player game. The 11 single-player missions take you, as a dude named Cortez, through a lot of different eras as you chase the TimeSplitters aliens in an attempt to thwart their evil plot. With all of this timeskipping going on, you're bound to run into yourself sooner or later...The other example we were told about involved going back in time to unlock doors for yourself and other clock-skipping shenanigans.[/QUOTE] I can't get over it, lol. It's just so original. Obviously, there will be a set, linear path through the game, I'm sure, but if there are multiple ways to go through the game, multiple paths--branching paths--the replay value will skyrocket. No romp through Campaign mode would be the same.

[url=http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/timesplitters3/preview_6098018.html]TimeSplitters: Future Perfect[/url] Now, the TimeSplitters series has taken flack for lack of a storyline, and has been criticized for "simple" Campaign mode, but this... [QUOTE]Remember all those science fiction time travel movies that said that you should try to never come in contact with yourself during your travels through time, lest the world be ripped apart by paradox? Well, throw all that nonsense out the window. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect is coming with online play, a cohesive story mode, the arcade mode that fans of the series know and love, and a little gameplay hook called "meet yourself gameplay" that will allow you to help yourself to victory.[/QUOTE] ...sounds unbelievably cool. [QUOTE]With all of this timeskipping going on, you're bound to run into yourself sooner or later, and that's the gist of what Free Radical is calling "meet yourself gameplay." In one sequence, you'll be pinned down and hiding from a vicious helicopter attack only to watch a daring rescue attempt perpetrated by? yourself? Yes, your future self busts out with some firepower and knocks the chopper out of the sky. Then, of course, not long after you're set free, you'll get the opportunity to be on the other side of that equation and knock out that chopper yourself. The other example we were told about involved going back in time to unlock doors for yourself and other clock-skipping shenanigans.[/QUOTE] Free Radical gets major props for even just thinking about this idea. I'm really hoping they're able to pull this off, because it would turn the entire time-travel game on its head. The possibilities for this "meet yourself gameplay" are unbelievable. I can only compare it to Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, in the scene with the Circle K and the Keys/Police Station. Already I'm psyched about Future Perfect, and that's hard to do. Plus, it sounds like Free Radical is taking TimeSplitting online, and giving the MapMaker a major boost, in both power/ease of use and the ability to upload/download maps from the Net. Thoughts?

[url=http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/teenagemutantninjaturtles2/preview_6098003.html]Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2[/url] Interesting announcement, to say the least. Some parts of the Hands-On I found particularly noteworthy; [QUOTE]In an interesting twist, all four players will share the same jumbo-capacity life bar, so the weakest link in a team will likely take some real-world lumps if he or she ends up getting everybody killed.[/QUOTE] When bringing back the 4-player capabilities, why use a singular life bar? I mean, Hyperstone Heist? Turtles in Time? Even the old TMNT arcade game had separate lifebars for each turtle. I don't know. Just seems "iffy." [QUOTE]Speaking of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Arcade Game, it is in fact unlockable in TMNT 2.[/QUOTE] Now this is more like it! :D [IMG]http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/Album%201/920740_20040510_screen001.jpg[/IMG] Gang-bang, it seems. [IMG]http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/Album%201/920740_20040510_screen003.jpg[/IMG] Looks like player synchronization is going to be heavily required. Donatello looks a bit screwed here. [IMG]http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/Album%201/920740_20040510_screen002.jpg[/IMG] Four players. Note the "Press Start" tabs up top, corresponding to each turtle. [IMG]http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/Album%201/920740_20040510_screen011.jpg[/IMG] Ninja Turtle Gaiden?

Obviously, we can't really judge the system quite yet, but from what I've seen, I'm certainly interested in what these Phantom people have up their sleeves. I'm definitely intrigued by their market strategy, the whole "bypassing the physical software and acting as a cable company" thing. It just seems really, really risky. If it works, more props to them, but unless they're extremely careful in what they do, it's going to be a most heinous crash n burn. I do like the idea of streaming games. I really do. But, if they're looking to be competitive with the other consoles (which Phantom really is...a console), they would need to feature roughly the same game line-up, and some of those games are rather extensive (yes, extensive). Unless they're running on some major powerhouse equipment, they're going to run into trouble when gamers start essentially downloading the games. The tech specs aren't all that impressive as it stands now, too. Normally, that wouldn't be a problem for consoles, but we're talking massive amounts of games being downloaded/streamed here, which is the total opposite of the "offline" consoles. Even Xbox and PS2 don't depend on the streaming like that, if at all. So, basically, this looks to be [i]extremely[/i] risky and I'm leery of whether this will work.

[QUOTE=shikamaru]I have heard stupidness from all of you is that what you will do when you know that ppl are going to die >_

Sciros, I'm continuing this because it's important. There are distinctions that need to be realized here. Keep in mind, I'm doing this to help, so it's not an attack, despite what you think my tone is. Okay? Here we go. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']PT, I don't know what makes you think you know my girlfriend better than I do. What makes you think you are "able to accurately figure out what she is thinking?" "A quiet girlfriend" isn't the most precise description of her, so "don't begin to think" that you know what you're talking about when you're talking about her.[/quote] Are you sure you know her as well as you think you do? You've said that you don't deal in subtleties. You've admitted that you don't go deeper into a subject if you are satisfied with a superficial reaction. How are you able to say, then, that you know your girlfriend enough to be content in deciding she is fine with what you are doing? [QUOTE]You don't know whether she deals in subtleties as much as you think she does. I don't deal in subtleties myself, that's all you know. On top of that, [i]I[/i], not you, am the one to judge how correctly or "incorrectly" I do things. Based on the kind of relationship my g/f and I have (which you don't have a good grasp of regardless of what you may think) I'd say I've been doing things correctly enough. ...And what makes you think I'm seeing what I "want" to see?[/QUOTE] Sciros, look at this. Think about it. You're taking something at face value, correct? You are not willing to consider the possibility that there is more than just the tip of the iceberg, correct? If you're unwilling to entertain the idea that maybe you don't know your girlfriend as well as you think you do, then how can you possibly be sure of the situation? If you haven't entertained all the possibilities here, how can you be certain you're looking at this with a well-rounded perspective, that has considered every possibility? And what makes you think you're seeing everything in this situation? How can you be so sure that the tip of the iceberg is [i]only[/i] the tip of the iceberg? Are you really willing to take that chance? [QUOTE]You assume that there's no way someone could possibly mean it when he/she says it's fun enough to just watch someone play a game. I myself have said numerous times in the past, however, and meant it. You also assume that the situation I described happens very frequently. You assume I "see her there, sitting quietly" as opposed to us talking about something the whole time. You assume too much to make the kinds of judgments that you make.[/QUOTE] No, what I'm saying is, there is absolutely no way for your girlfriend to mean it when [i]she[/i] says it. You are an entirely different story, with entirely different motivations. Last you checked, Sciros, you [i]are[/i] a guy, right? Also, she is a woman, and women do operate much differently than you think you understand them. And Sciros, I can say without ego that I have a much clearer idea of how women think. I'm telling you that "I'm Fine" is not good. And let me ask you, if she's so quiet all the time, and in fact, you have said in your previous posts how she is very quiet, often only talking to you, and even then, often, not at all. So, which is it? Is she talkative? Do you hold conversation? Or is your original statement accurate? What is the truth? [QUOTE]I politely ask you to drop the subject altogether. Based on where your replies have been heading, you might end up saying something you'll have to apologize for. So we'll end the discussion here.[/QUOTE] Why, Sciros? Why do you suddenly want to withdrawal from this discussion? What could I possibly be getting at that is so upsetting for you? What could I be getting at that would shatter the very foundation of your point here? What are you afraid of? What could I possibly say that would hurt you so much that you would need an apology? [QUOTE]What utter nonsense. If you reread what I replied to ("[Gaming] is all about the experience of connecting with people, whether through actual gaming or just watching someone turn into a little kid as you relate what wondrous adventures...") you'll hopefully notice that you made a general statement about [i]gaming[/i] which I didn't fully agree with. Your post did deal with the human interaction aspect of gaming, but my post said that that wasn't all there is to it. My post therefore referred to the whole of gaming, not to just the human interaction involved in it. As for what I think "entertainment" is, I seem to have a better grasp on it than you. Entertainment is not only based on the "oral tradition" as you put it. Sure, some of it is, but when I played Baldur's Gate I and II there was no "oral tradition" or human interaction involved whatsover. It was purely personal entertainment. So my point, once again, is that there's more to the whole of entertainment, and gaming, than just the "human interaction and storytelling" aspect.[/QUOTE] Baldur's Gate? You know, funny you should mention Baldur's Gate. You are aware of the origins of Baldur's Gate? Dungeons and Dragons, a tabletop RPG, driven by pure human interaction. The plot and progression of Dungeons and Dragons are conceived purely by the human element. Furthermore, think about what the game is. Look at the setting, the tone, the characterizations. Think about Beowulf. The similarities are uncanny. Oral tradition is the very foundation of gaming. Baldur's Gate only serves to strengthen my point, and weakens yours. [quote]Best of luck.[/QUOTE] Thank you much. Considering I got a perfect grade (150/150) on the 11 page Ahab/Smith essay, and the majority of the Melville/Faulkner exam was on Moby Dick, I think I did quite well.

Quick post here, then I'm off to take a few Finals. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]*Sigh* Don't think you know how we interact or how my g/f acts. She is very quiet, and talks to nobody but me, and even then not too much. I often have nothing to go on but body language and how she "carries herself." And I manage well enough, I think, cause we've been together for while now and know each other somewhat well. She doesn't have to say she wants to do something else because I "haven't taken the initiative." Throughout my playing a stage in Ninja Gaiden I will have suggested a hundred other things that I figured she'd rather do, and she says that she's fine and it's fun enough to watch me curse at the ninja for being a klutz. Anyway, don't assume too much here. My g/f is much more complex and difficult to figure out than you'd think. More so than other girls I've dated or known. I wish that weren't the case, but it is.[/quote] If your girlfriend is much more complex and difficult to figure out than your previous relationships, what makes you so sure you are able to accurately figure out what she is thinking, as she sits there quietly while you play? You see, you see her sitting there quietly, offering to do something else, etc, and she is saying, "No, I'm fine." Correct? And you are basing your behavior on that perception, correct? That is your problem. Sciros, if anything, you are basing the meaning of this situation on a superficial value. You're taking everything at face value. My girlfriend is the exact same way. Very quiet, reserved, outgoing occasionally, but generally, a subdued individual. Don't begin to think that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to a quiet girlfriend. Think about what I'm saying here. Think about the subtleties of life. You have a habit of missing subtleties. Work on that and when you are able to actually see a situation in all of its complexity, and not only what you [i]want[/i] to see, you will find that you've been doing things quite incorrectly. I say that without any insult whatsoever. "She says that she's fine and it's fun enough to watch me curse at the ninja for being a klutz." And you are ready to believe that? I don't want to say you're a horrible boyfriend, but... [quote]What I said in my previous post had to do with video games in general, not video games and relationships. I don't play single-player games so I can tell people stories about them, and I usually [i]don't[/i] tell people stories about them. (But the few I do are interesting enough, and that's not really any matter of concern for me.) Of course it makes no sense to describe games to people in a boring or "tech" way or whatever, especially if they aren't interested in games to begin with. I wasn't talking about that at all.[/QUOTE] Since you are trying to change the meaning of your post in an attempt to counter my rebuttal, let's have a look. And even better, I'll include what you were replying to. [quote name='Anime_fangurl']I'm not against gaming, of course, but I do not treat it like an outlet for a social outcast. It's all about the experience of connecting with people, whether through actual gaming or just watching someone turn into a little kid as you relate what wondrous adventures you've had in the past six years.[/quote] [quote name='Sciros']Well, gaming is a lot of things. More than anything, it's a form of entertainment. It's just as much about enjoying a good PC RPG on your own as it is about telling people all the cool stuff you did in that RPG.[/quote] Sciros, my previous point there dealt directly with the human interaction and storytelling aspect of gaming. What you said in response to that was in direct response to those points, and thus were related to my subject matter, which was human interaction and the storytelling aspect of gaming. What do you think "entertainment" is? Not only electronic mediums. Beowulf, oral tradition. Your own words betray you. The entertainment is [i]based[/i] on the oral tradition. Finals, here I come. Later.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']No. I'm a gamer geek, though.[/quote] Could have fooled me. [QUOTE]I'm not worried about stereotypes here. And she only sits while I play because that's what she says she wants to do. It's weird, I think, but when I suggest doing something else she'll often say that she's fine just sitting there. Maybe she does really like watching me play for all I know. And I do try to keep it pretty funny. Anyway, when she does want to do something else she says so. And it's actually not that often that I do play games when she's around.[/QUOTE] If you're describing this situation precisely how it is, then you should be worried about stereotypes. Sciros, no matter what she tells you, and no matter what your [i]perception[/i] of the reality is, she is not enjoying watching you play video games. I'm telling you that's how it is. I know from experience. It's common sense, even. You should be able to pick-up on her disinterest simply from her body language, from how she carries herself as you blast through a stage in Ninja Gaiden. "When she does want to do something else she says so" Why do you think she has to say so? Because you haven't taken the initiative. [quote]Well, gaming is a lot of things. More than anything, it's a form of entertainment. It's just as much about enjoying a good PC RPG on your own as it is about telling people all the cool stuff you did in that RPG.[/QUOTE] How many times must I say this, lol. It's not what you [i]do[/i] in a game, it's not about the cool stuff you can do, no matter console or MMORPG. It's [i]how[/i] you tell the story. Talking PC RPGs, fine. I was describing Star Wars Galaxies to my girlfriend last night, just in passing, as a supplemental note in our discussion about human interaction. Had I just explained the game, fact by fact, in a purely technical sense, I might as well have been talking to my computer. But [i]how[/i] I told the story got her interested. I've said it before and I'll repeat it now. Storytellers are what makes the world go 'round. You can have the most interesting experience ever, but if you are unable to adequately tell that story, it's useless. And someone can have the most mundane life, but if they can bring passion to it, make it exciting, it can reach people in ways you never imagined. I've got a thread here in the Lit forum that illustrates precisely this. A Title For It. On the 4th, maybe 5th page, but go find it. My point is, tech gaming will only do so much. It has a cap to its potential. The human interaction, though, the ability to touch upon the very sense of wonder and love for excitement that is inherent in all human beings, that, Sciros, that is limitless, and that is what you need to concentrate on, if you wish to have a successful relationship. Concentrate on the person, not the game. When someone sees that they have your attention, that you are excited to be around them (hehe), that you enjoy their company and love telling stories in an effort to make them feel welcome in a situation, they will be more inclined to participate in activities that you enjoy, like gaming. This touches back to what James has said with give-and-take.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]About the target audience thing... well, the fact that GoldenEye is in the title will make some of the seasoned gamers pay attention to it (gamers who buy "mature" games nowadays, that is). I agree that Doom 3 and G:RE are completely different playing experiences, but I fall into the target audience for both, as do a lot of gamers I'd imagine. And "mature" games are purchased by younger gamers as well (GTA3, etc.). I suppose G:RE might be more "accessible" to the younger and non-hardcore crowd, but I don't know if that will matter too much when you're talking [i]such[/i'] heavy hitters as Halo 2. Anyway, Halo 2's multiplayer will also be killer, so that's a whole other thing to talk about.[/quote]You and I may be the audience that can appreciate both Doom 3 and Rogue Agent, but for little Bobby (great show, Bobby's World), whose mother simply talks to the employee at GameStop about Doom 3, Rogue Agent will definitely be a more viable option. GTA isn't a proper point here. What GTA did was...potty humor, more or less. What Doom 3 is looking to do is intense psychological horror. Just reading the previews and hands-on for it, Doom 3 is going to be something that would give kids nightmares, quite the opposite of GTA, which is merely outlandish for the sake of being outlandish. I mean, Doom 3 making you [i]choose[/i] between unarmed with a flashlight, or armed with no light at all? GTA is kid's stuff, despite the M rating. Doom 3, however, is not looking to be suitable for those kids who slip under the radar, so to speak. [QUOTE]Anyway, I saying that a really killer multiplayer would be a way to even get the attention of the Doom 3 audience (who otherwise would only have (what seems to be) a pretty stale deathmatch mode in Doom 3) and Half-Life 2 audience. Halo... there's probably no hope for G:RE on X-box once that monster hits shelves. I'm thinking nearly everyone with an X-box will get it.[/QUOTE]My local GameStop already has 50 pre-reserves for Halo 2. But if Halo 2 lives up to the hype, expect absolutely nothing to survive, not Doom 3, Rogue Agent, whatever. So, really, there's no hope for anything when Halo 2 is released. And look at what Doom 3 is going to be. It's going to focus on creating an experience, visually, aurally, structurally. The singleplayer is going to be something to behold, and if the Multi is half as good as Campaign, then the Multi will be quite impressive. On top of that, Doom 3 is being designed, really, catered specifically for Xbox Live 2.0 or 3.0, whichever is coming out next. It's utilizing everything available. Rogue Agent will again, need to be a total package to have a reasonable marketshare. [quote]As for the PD slo-mo, you maybe only played the crappy setups with it. Combat Boosts, I'd agree, are horrible. But you wouldn't be able to do a "slow on your screen, fast on other screens" sort of deal because that's sort of impossible due to what you'd be doing to [i]time[/i] in that case. The combat boosted player would be "behind" in time as he moved. The [i]right[/i] way to do slo-mo was "smart slo-mo," which slowed down the action as opponents neared each other (not teammates, but opponents specifically). It worked great for one-on-one with one-hit-kills, because my brother and I would be running around fast when we're not next to each other, getting a weapon or two, and as we got close to each other ready for action, the game would slow down and it's be all matrix-y for a couple of seconds as we tried to shoot each other, just barely missing. It was especially cool with crossbows because you can see the bolts fly and the trails they leave, meaning you can anticipate successive shots. Smart slo-mo also helped even the playing field when playing against many DarkSims (though the level would have to be HUGE for the game not to be slow all the time, seeing as DarkSims hound you to no end)[/QUOTE]"all matrix-y for a couple of seconds" Okay, keep this in mind. If you and your bro were in a more open area, say, the Grid, fighting in one corner of the glass ceiling room, and a third player was on the opposite side, observing the fight, what would that third player be seeing?

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Heh. [b]You make it seem like I'm some sex-starved gamer geek[/b'], lol. Of course video games is just a social thing; a way to spend time with other people. I was just thinking about why most guys care whether or not girls play video games, and tried to come up with some reason.[/quote] Aren't you? [quote]For me personally, it's not frustrating in a "sex vs gaming" way. If you read an earlier post of mine, you'll see that in my case the problem is even though my g/f does hang out with me when I play video games, I don't think she enjoys it all that much. She says she does, but I don't know if I believe her. That's why I'm waiting for something she'll like, such as Mario Tennis.[/QUOTE] Funny you should mention the whole "girlfriend saying she enjoys it" thing. Just last night I was describing particular adventures to my girlfriend, most notably the Potty Break Backstab described in the Insane Gaming Moments thread here, and the Tourney day on the Pittsburgh Trip. Now, she is not a gamer at all. Not at all. But as I was relating the Golden Gun brutality in the Complex, she was getting as excited as I was. I find that while non-gamers aren't particularly interested in the actual playing, tech and such, a good storyteller, describing the human element, can connect with the non-gamer. Because, like we've said, the human element is the core of gaming. All the great stories you hear don't mean sh-t if they're just about tech. If someone doesn't give the context of a particularly vicious Smash Melee battle, or High Noon Draw (-10 Health. Pistols. First to 5) in the Facility, then they have no idea what they were doing. I can say that without any hesitation. Gaming is about the experience of interacting with human beings, not holding a controller and slamming buttons. And because this human element, this bond, this connection is inherent in every human being, that is the way to entice the non-gamer: to show them the beauty of a unity brought about by something as simple as 17 gamers huddled around two couches, all mesmerized by a LAN game of Double Dash. You want to be sure your girlfriend is having fun? Don't have her sit there while you play, lol. I can [i]guarantee[/i] she's lying straight to your face when she says she's having fun. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind she is bored out of her mind. And really, having her sit there while you play only further reinforces the "alienated gamer" stereotype, further widening the gap between real people and those with controllers for hands. I'm not against gaming, of course, but I do not treat it like an outlet for a social outcast. It's all about the experience of connecting with people, whether through actual gaming or just watching someone turn into a little kid as you relate what wondrous adventures you've had in the past six years. James, as an addendum to your footnote, heh, of course I don't disregard the give-and-take aspect of a relationship, but it's important to keep in mind that gaming should be compartmentalized. Obviously, a relationship depends on an equal effort from both people involved, and I agree entirely that give-and-take is required. But it is foolish to place an overly heavy emphasis on any one particular facet in one's life. That's where the "it's cool that she likes video games" idea comes from. To be able to appreciate the positives, but also to be able to see the whole picture. Similar to...see the forest and the trees, I think.

[quote name='Edward Bloom']On one hand, if dying was all you thought about, it could kind of screw you up. But it could kind of help you, couldn't it? Because you'd know everything else you can survive.[/quote] I think the main question here is, "Does the knowledge of one's mortality affect their outlook on life?" The answer is yes, obviously, but there are different degrees to that outlook. You see, death is not the enemy, nor is it our friend. We shouldn't welcome it with open arms, and at the same time, we shouldn't fear it, or hate it. We cannot let death rule our lives. When we obsess over death, let it consume our thoughts, we are not preparing ourselves for anything, nor are we somehow more in-tune with reality than anyone else. Death is merely the end, nothing more. While we enjoy personifying it, giving it human traits of selection and discrimination, everyone is equal in death's eye. That's why while, yes, I would be sad to know I have three days to live, I would not be crushed. If I were to die in three days, if I knew I was to die in three days, I would cherish the days I've had. I've lived a good life, I've had fun, and I don't regret a thing. Life is a learning experience, and to borrow a page from Walter Pater (19th century "philosopher"), life is about learning from the experiences. I've had a great ride, I feel secure in the knowledge that I've affected lives in a meaningful and positive way. If there is an after-life, which I believe the after-life is whatever the individual wants, when I get there, whenever that may be, I'm going to hear the words, "The show starts in an hour." I'm a performer, whether it's on stage or in front of a classroom. Give me a microphone and an audience, and I'm set to go. "The show starts in an hour." I like that.

Sciros, don't look at it as sex versus gaming. That's why you're so frustrated. Look at it as simply human interaction versus human interaction. That's what gaming is. Human interaction. Whether it's an Official Tourney, a small town's little gathering of its gaming populace, a few people bringing in an N64 to the local high school to play during Drama Rehearsals (true story, lol), it's about social gatherings. It's about getting together with people you know and having fun, and this is no different between girlfriends or the guys. It's actually a very interesting point. When one starts seeing a girl, one naturally spends more time with her, often leaving one's buddies to their own devices. And this is a natural flow of life, nothing to be worried about, because as long as those buddies understand and are supportive, they will always be there. Sometimes, however, people have a hard time letting go, or people have serious attachment issues/fears of abandonment, but that's really another topic entirely. Simply, girlfriend/buddies depends on balance and understanding. The balance comes from providing equal time to both, and the understanding is two-fold. One, understanding is required on everyone's part so that things run smoothly, no matter what the evening's activities, and two, understanding of life itself and the processes found in it.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Well I didn't say they should not work on the campaign mode. But I still think that multiplayer is where GE truly shined and really what players would be looking for in G:RE more than anything. Certainly that is the case with me.[/quote] GE truly shined in [i]both[/i] Multi and Campaign, though. That's the beauty of it. It was a total package. You could talk to gamers for hours about the Campaign mode, and you could tell countless stories about GE's Multi. [QUOTE]I mean, if EA didn't work much on multi and made just a killer single-player campaign, then what's the point of calling it GoldenEye really? You know what I mean? Anyway, I'm not saying they should work solely on multiplayer, but I think it should be a priority over the single player (not by far, but slightly). It IS what the original is known for, really. And not only that, but as far as single-player FPSs (and 3rd-person-shooters) go, there's gonna be a heck of a lot of competition. Multiplayer, though, is currently only good in Halo and barely bearable in Timesplitters (and I guess there are the Battlefield games and other similar stuff on PC, and Counterstrike... but nothing like GE anymore in any case).[/QUOTE] Multi shouldn't take priority over Campaign, though, if EA is serious about what they want to do with Rogue Agent. You've seen the Dev interview, right? They are very dedicated to getting this [i]entire[/i] game right. I'm not convinced quite yet that the game will be stellar, but from what I've seen, it's shaping up very well. The Dev looks to understand what the Bond universe is, and specifically, what a Bond game is. I have a feeling that EA knows where they went wrong in Nightfire and such. And if the entirety of EA doesn't know, then the Dev in the interview knows. I expect them to devote themselves to crafting both a strong Campaign mode and Multi. Competition-wise, look at it this way. With the Trinity FPS coming out (Halo 2, Doom 3, Half-Life 2), Rogue Agent isn't really going for that audience. While many FPS fans are going to want to play all of these FPS, Bond games have always known to be more "audience-friendly" to fans that wouldn't really be the target audience of say, Doom 3. I've been reading up on Doom 3 lately, and it's not for little kids at all. It doesn't even sound appropriate for the 12-15 year old bracket, so right there, Rogue Agent has a leg-up, so to speak. This is similar with Halo 2 and Half-Life 2, both of which will certainly have a Mature rating. Rogue Agent, in keeping with EA's Bond games, I expect to have a Teen rating. Now, I think reasonable competition--that is, FPS games targeting the same audience--is something like Star Wars Battlefront (which sounds spectacular and will probably get me to subscribe to Xbox Live). That looks to be geared toward a more, I want to say childish, but that's not the right term. SWB is more geared toward a [i]wholesome[/i] audience. [QUOTE] Also I can't say that GE set the standard for single-player FPSs. Many people would probably put Half-Life in the top spot when it comes to that. ... Well no, console-wise I can't think of a better single-player FPS than GE, unless you count current generation games. As for Perfect Dark only adding bells and whistles, I suppose you could think of it that way. But they were some sweet bells and whistles--killer simulants, and unsurpassed customizeability, including really neat stuff like smart slo-mo. It'd be nice if G:RE looked into adding things like that.[/QUOTE] And for GE to have held that pinnacle of FPS since 1997, with many FPSers still regarding it as the best FPS ever, there's something there. Even today, I can find gamers who still have their N64s hooked up. Mine is right here next to me. GE is the precise example of good gaming never dying. The singleplayer is still unmatched, both in scope and execution. Granted, today's technology has allowed for some fantastic stuff, but we expect that today. Back then--but even today--GE gives us singleplayer how it should be: intense, fast, unforgiving at times, but always incredible. Whether it was sniping with the AR33 in the Jungle, sneaking around the Aztec Temple with double Moonraker lasers, carefully stepping through the Golden Gun chamber, or blazing through the Facility as fast as you can to get Invincibility, GE had it all. There are some who criticize it for lack of stealth, but I find those who criticize it for "only running and gunning" often only see running and gunning as a viable gameplay. GE has stealth; it just doesn't force--er, [i]suggest[/i] that you use it. The only options from PD's Multi I'd really crave are the Bots and customizability, and they've become a staple of Multi now, so it's really common practice. The slo-mo was extraneous and really, served no strategic purpose whatsoever. If they really wanted to make slo-mo something worthwhile, make it player specific. One of my biggest beefs with PD was how slo-mo affected all players. I mean, Combat Boost? One player using it? Why does it slow down everyone? What really should happen, is the player using it should go into slo-mo on their screen, while becoming insanely fast on everyone else's. Think Bullet Time. That's how it should have been. And since it wasn't utilized that way, it became a gimmick, something that served no purpose in terms of actual gameplay. [quote]Eh, I'm all over the place here. It's late. Ok I guess what I'm saying is this: getting yet another single-player Bond game is all nice and stuff (well they've all had multi, but nothing spectacular unless you count EoN's co-op, but that's not what we're talking about), but I think what we're really itching for is a good Bond multiplayer game. It's been a while since I've really enjoyed a good one-hit-kill proxymine/sniper rifle setup (in PD, but still...). And if EA delivers a great single player campaign and a blah multiplayer, I'll be far more upset than if the multiplayer is stellar but the single-player campain blows. Especially because GoldenEye is in the title.[/quote] Think EoN's Campaign mode and GE's Multi. That's what they're looking to do, I'm pretty sure. And remember, had GE not had a stellar Campaign mode, nobody would have unlocked any cheats at all until Gameshark or the button press codes came out. EA is going to put insane amounts of effort into both modes, to make sure it's a stellar experience throughout. To do otherwise spells their doom. [quote]As for getting a Turok: Rage Wars, I'm sure nobody wants that. The weapons were kinda cool, but I would've preferred that they be in a different game. Like DK64 or something.[/QUOTE] Yes, because Turok: Rage Wars wasn't a game, lol. It was pure Multi, and not even done very well. [quote name='Shigeru']Who the hell wants to play alongside Bond? I want to BE Bond so I can get cool gadgets and hot chicks. Sad what they did to what could have been a kick-*** single player.[/quote] This is precisely why Rogue Agent is what it is, because gamers depend on being Bond so much. I get the feeling you didn't watch the Dev interview. He answers all of your questions there, and I think I answered them in my first post in this thread, too. [QUOTE]And do you know if the new Bond game was anygood.[/QUOTE] Everything or Nothing? One of the best Bond games I've played. Rivals GE in many respects. Damn near matches it in Campaign mode. [quote]As for multiplayer Goldeneye was the king of FPS console games (FPS are better on the PC though.) until Halo came out. While I'm damn sure history will not repeat itself with the sequel I hope to god they get the multiplayer package right. I want things like Paintball and DK mode back dammit![/QUOTE] It's not a sequel, though. It's more similar to how Perfect Dark was a "sequel in spirit." It used to be called "GoldenEye 2," sure, but they've transformed it into something original, an entirely new animal. Sequel in spirt, sequel in spirit. I wouldn't mind Paintball coming back, though. That was fun.

I doubt I'll be able to top Desi's story there, but here goes. I had to potty. Real bad. It was almost unbearable. It felt like my bladder was about to burst, and I could only rock back and forth to keep from pissing my pants. My friends didn't enjoy the potty breaks, and I took them often. It wasn't my fault, really. I mean, I can't control an overactive bladder. So, there I was, chanting, "Gotta potty gotta potty gotta potty" as my friends laughed at me. Oh, they laughed, they laughed, they laughed. I heard them laugh. They began mocking me, they did. "Flushing meadows, wouldn't you like to go to the flushing meadows?" They said. I wanted to flip them off, but I needed both my hands, one to run away away, and the other to hold myself. I had to potty. Eventually, I couldn't take it anymore and paused the game. I briskly walk to the bathroom, shut the door, and all is well. After draining the lizard, as it were, it occurred to me that I had left my friends alone with the game, with all of the controllers. This did not bode well for my return, to say the least. I suspected a very heinous plot had just been executed. I return from the bathroom and see a very queer smile upon my friends' faces. I ask them, "What did you guys do?" "Oh, nothing, not really anything," they coyly reply with a sinister chuckle. I sit back down, pick-up my controller, and notice that my character appeared on three of the four screens, his head very nicely in the crosshairs of three KF7 Soviet rifles. I see my health and armor bars, which were now fully depleted, all except for one bar of health. They had been full before my potty break. I look at my friends, they shrug, laugh maniacally, and unpause the game. In the seconds after the unpausition, I can't quite remember what happened. It was all just a blur. But when that blood trailed down on three of the screens, and my character still held the Golden Gun, I think my friends realized that victory was not an option for them. I looked at their faces and saw daggers in their eyes. They hit Start to respawn and went marching to their death again. Oh, tis sweet, sweet memories of an age long forgotten.

Des, precisely my point. This post isn't directed at you, of course; it's just me elaborating. Because gaming is about human interaction--it's a social event, really--it needs the right people to work. There is only so much fun one can have in SCII, for example, if they are only concerned with the technical merits of the game, and are unaware of the human element inherent in successful gaming environments. What is wonderful about this inherent human element, is that it has no natural gender distinction. Anyone can enjoy games. Everyone has that potential to enjoy some game, somewhere. Basically, there is a gender distinction because we put it there. We apply it. And, just looking at the past 10 years, we've seen an [i]incredible[/i] societal revolution in that socially-imposed gender distinction. The transformation is mindboggling, really. Not to say that female and male gamers hold the same marketshare, because that's not true at all. What I [i]am[/i] saying, is that those gender stereotypes and gender distinctions are beginning to break down. Of course, there are still genres that do not appeal to the female gamer (FPS comes to mind), but I don't attribute that to social expectations. That seems more to be...just an intimidation, akin to what Tony has mentioned about the 3D vs 2D. I know that a non-gamer cannot be forced to become a gamer, and I would never support the effort to "convert," as it were. But what seems to be a viable option to ease a non-gamer into it, like Sciros mentions, start with Mario Tennis or Mario Party. These games are simple enough to entice, but still are complicated enough to give the non-gamer a fairly sound foundation on which to build, provided the non-gamer is interested. But we must keep in mind that gaming is not the center of the universe for anyone, gamers included. It should be treated like a hobby, and...it should be a hobby, quite frankly. A well-rounded individual can accomplish far more than someone who is devoted to video games. Video games are not the only things to be taken in moderation, either. Any form of entertainment needs to be taken in moderation, whether it be anime, TV, movies, parties, whatever. I think everything would run much more smoothly if we all became casual gamers, both in action and in mentality, because the majority of the public are casual gamers, and if we honestly want to be friendly to other gamers, we can't come on so strongly. This touches back upon not forcing someone to play, but letting them explore for themselves. The way I see it, there is no such thing as a female gamer, and there is no such thing as a male gamer. I view gaming as I view life: an opportunity to have fun. That's it from me for now.

You know, at both ends of the spectrum, this topic makes no sense at all. On one end, guys think girl gamers are sexy, and really, not to echo Feminist ideals, but that's just sexism right there, lol. Yes, it's nice when a girl is into gaming as much as a guy is, and surely that's more in common between the two of them, but to call a female gamer "sexy" simply because she plays video games? I honestly can't see the logic in that. I highly doubt that going up to a female gamer and saying, "Hey, you're into games? That's sexy" is going to get you bonus points, a date, or a kiss at the end of the night. And on the other end of the spectrum, a girl who isn't into games at all is viewed as an alien, in a sense, someone who...is in another world all of her own, a world that cannot be understood by the male gamer, and thus a world that has little bearing. Like Shinmaru has said, it's cool when a girl is into gaming. But that's it. I've known plenty of great girls who weren't into gaming, and I've known some real disturbed girls who were avid gamers, so an interest in gaming does not relate to the quality of the girl. Frankly, I don't base my opinion of a girl on her gaming tendencies, at all. Gaming is a hobby of mine, nothing more. I do it to relax on the weekends, I take a trip out to Pittsburgh every so often. And even then, the Pitt Trips are not only for the gaming. They're about the human interaction. I didn't have fun with the gamers out in Pitt simply because they were gamers. I enjoyed their company because they were decent human beings. So, using an interest in video games as some sort of scale of rating a girl...has no point whatsoever. Like I said, if a girl is into gaming, cool. If she isn't, cool. I look for quality of character more than quality of gaming.

[QUOTE=BlueYoshi]I can see where you're coming from. So according to your argument, if Square-Enix stopped making Final Fantasy and another company took over to make the next FF game in the series, it would still be the same because it has FF in the title? You'd be surprised. As for the screens, yeah looking good. I particularly like the lighting effects surrounding the fires and explosions though. Cool.[/QUOTE]Not quite my point, but close. See, what you have to keep in mind about the FF series, is that fans expect a very specific game when it has Final Fantasy in the title, true? The gaming mechanics remain relatively unchanged. Obviously, there have been variations in the battle systems over the years, and of course greater technology means we can expect a more immersive environment. But the key point here is the fan expectations. A different company taking over the FF series will surely bring about variation on the FF mechanics. I don't argue with that for a second. But what I do think is worth mentioning is that a different company taking over production of the FF series will still need to focus on creating a total package, and not focus their energies on one facet of gameplay and one alone, unless the game they are creating is something that must strictly adhere to one, specific gameplay style, like FF Tactics. This is evident in 8, for example. The battle system was not as developed as it should have been. It felt half-baked, as it were, and was disjointed from the rest of the game. This is what I'm talking about when talking about EA and Rogue Agent. If EA wants to impress FPS/GE fans, they cannot pull a FF8, and not develop the entire game. EA needs to create the total package. Different developers are fine and dandy, and I realize there will be some variation, but that variation needs to feel complete, which is very important in Rogue Agent's case. The name, GoldenEye, is a direct comparison point to the original, and EA cannot only develop particular facets of gameplay if they wish to hold a candle to GE, arguably one of the best total package FPS around. Get what I'm saying? Yeah, I really get a kick out of the explosion in the new screens. The guy being propelled like that is just hilarious, and I can't wait to see that stuff in motion. EDIT: I'd just like to add something here. "Reckless brutality." LOL. I don't know why, maybe it's just the time of night, maybe I'm just mentally exhausted from Finals Preparation, but "reckless brutality" just sounds awesome right now. I mean, if it turns out to be what I think it is, we're going to be running through Fort Knox gunning down whoever gets in our way, which totally violates everything James Bond stands for, lol. Man, I'm hoping this game turns out well. We get to play as the bad guy!