Semjaza

[quote name='Godelsensei] The one of all the people looking down on the screen is, frankly, one of the best adds I have ever seen. Truly taking the art of advertising and keeping it that way: an [i]art[/i'].[/quote] Too bad they followed it up with an absolutely terrible one where the guy playing the PSP turns into all sorts of different characters and creatures. Incredibly lame. I think they pulled that one pretty quickly.

The band recently played at KROQ's Weenie Roast festival. They apparently couldn't come up with any existing songs to play, so they basically just made up a song on the spot that turned into an almost 45 minute jam session. It's really damn good and luckily someone recorded it. It should be easily available as "Abortion: The Other White Meat" if you look around. I highly recommend it.

Yeah, the first one really did suck. Level 5 took that and totally revamped it in every possible way with the sequel. There's some annoying qualities to it, I suppose, but it's very well presented, looks great and there's just so much to do. The sidequests and minigames in Dark Cloud 2 are almost large enough to be their own separate game. I wrote a massive impression thread on this when it first came out, but unfortunately no one seemed much into the game at the time.

[quote name='Meggido']Um is the lvl cap still 20 for this game...that's the only thing stopping me from getting it.[/quote] Yeah, as it was mentioned before. That hasn't changed. I honestly can't see it being an issue for anyone. The game isn't about level grinding to begin with and there's plenty to do at any level.

[quote name='Kamuro][SIZE=1']I understand what you're saying Generic, you're obviously a fan modest mouse rather then franz ferdinand. And maybe they have many more albums and have been around longer, but the point is, they sound very very alike. Thats the relation I was making, as different as you could make them seem, they sound the same at least to me, and several other people here.[/SIZE][/quote] I really like both of those bands. I wouldn't fairly compare one being better than the other. I mean, I was singing the praises of Franz Ferdinand well before I knew anyone else that cared about them. I'm not being biased here. My only point of saying Modest Mouse has more under their belt was simply that they've had the time to go in more directions than Franz Ferdinand. If people want to compare them, that's fine... but saying they're the same is like saying Billy Joel sounds like Pink Floyd. They sound almost nothing alike aside from being rock bands. I don't see the comparison. I don't see anyone else here agreeing that they "sound the same". It's mostly just been people complaining about why they think one sucks and one doesn't for random reasons. That's not a decent comparison of anything lol. I imagine if someone other than myself came in here and actually listened to a decent amount of material from both groups they'd easily agree they're not very similar at all. Recent singles have more of a comparison, but not enough to make a difference. The comparison between them is the main driving bass line (which I won't argue, it is similar -- but that's in countless songs, it's very basic). You can't compare entire bands based on simply that and I think that's largely what is happening here. Either people are basing that idea on a handful of songs or they have something stuck in their ears. The former is most obvious considering the only actual song mentioned was Float On. Otherwise... Michael vs Teeth Like God's Shoeshine? 40ft vs Bury Me With It? I mean, honestly. Out of the other ones (which aren't "unknown" in the slightest, really lol), I prefer Rammstein to Dimmu Borgir. I've liked their sound for quite sime time and they've done nothing but improve. I enjoy the efficient, clean sound their music has. I don't care for either of the pop punk bands listed either. I think the argument of what's "real" punk or metal is irrelvant here when you're comparing two bands in the same spectrum. Their sounds might be different, but genre semantics get you nowhere.

I really like the band. I had this Best of 2004 thing on my site with eleven or so bands and they easily made it onto the list. Honestly, Funeral probably was my favorite album of 2004. I think my favorite song off of Funeral is Power Out, but I'm not entirely sure. It's all good. I wish they had more material, though. I have the main album, as well as the Us Kids Know EP they put out before that... but aside from some b-sides on singles there's not much more to listen to. I want more lol. I do have some bootlegs, however. It seems to be the general opinion that they're far better live than they are in the studio and I'd have to agree from what I've heard. I really love their albums, but live it just goes into a whole new level. It's amazing how much is going on at once and mixing so perfectly within their sound. They seem to have gotten incredibly popular for a band of their type, which is nice. I know they've been selling out venues and their tickets in Europe and such have been scalping for pretty high prices. I didn't expect them to explode like they have.

I read about this elsewhere a couple of weeks or so back. Honestly, the last person who should be attempting a concept album is R. Kelly. I wonder if he thinks this is honestly how is life is. I wouldn't be surprised considering the man is obviously in denial over other things. I got around to hearing it and, really, I can't imagine ever wanting to hear it again. It really is repetitive and the whole thing is just ridiculous. That's obviously just my opinion. There's better concept albums out there, that's for sure lol.

[QUOTE=Retribution][SIZE=1]Hmm... well, I'm using Photoshop CS. I find it funny that CS 2 is not only harder to use (as far as texting goes), but there's less to work with than CS, or whatever you were running. Here's the steps I follow to make a .gif transparent. [1] Save file as [B].gif[/B]. It won't work otherwise. [2] The prompt "Indexed Colors" should come up. When it does, make sure you have the following settings (They work for me all the time...) [I]Pallete:[/I] Local (Selective) [I]Colors:[/I] 256 (I don't think this matters much though.) [I]Forced:[/I] Black and White (I don't think this matters much either. Transparency: Checked on. [I]Matte:[/I] This really doesn't matter. You actually get some awesome effects depending on what it's set on. *makes mental note of this* [I]Dither:[/I] Diffusion [I]Amount:[/I] 75% [I]Preserve Exact Colors:[/I] Checked on, unless you want a messed-up banner. I'm hoping your version has the same options to select. Hit save. Then, another prompt [should] appear. Select "Normal." I dunno what "Interlaced" does, and it probably doesn't matter. I'm just giving you the way that works for me.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] All that stuff is still in CS2. I'm not sure what you're referring to. The save for web and text stuff remains largely unchanged from previous versions. Anyway, I like this last image, particularly the one without text. It seems to radiate as if it had a light of its own, which I think is a nice quality. As for the others, I like the idea of having the character stick out from the banner some. In some cases I think it makes the banner a bit too tall, but it works nicely in others. It does help make them not look like just another square banner you see all the time (like mine lol). The last one's text is extremely hard to read, though.

I have to wonder what in the world you've listened to to think Modest Mouse and Franz Ferdinand are similar to begin with. The former has several albums under their belt, most wildly eccentric with a very defined style that is still pretty unique to them. Franz Ferdinand has one single album to draw from that sounds more like an upbeat version of Interpol than anything else. I'm not seeing the comparison here whatsoever. As for the others, I have no preference really lol. :animeshy:

[quote name='DeathBug']Do I really want to support a performer who'ss too stupid to adopt a stage name? Nah.[/quote] She reverted back to the last name of Dufour, what more would she have to do in that regard?

[quote name='James][color=#737373']I wouldn't describe it as a long grind or anything though...[/color][/quote] Yeah, particularly compared to pretty much any other online RPG on the market. It's not much of an issue. I broke it once with an older character of mine and it never felt like a big deal. Strangely I hear a lot of people complaining it levels up too fast. Some people are never satisifed, I suppose.

I doubt I'd even care for what she's putting out to begin with, but it wouldn't be something that would make me not buy it. With the way people are nowadays, this is probably bringing so much more attention to it than it would normally get. It'll probably have increased sales thanks to this stuff. If I decided never to buy something from someone related to a person that did something bad or unacceptable I don't think I'd have much to purchase in my lifetime.

James's last post reminds me of Matt at IGNCube, of all things: [quote]I'm assuming this e-mail to IGNcube was sparked by another website's recent evaluation of Nintendo as a business. I read over that, too. Some good points in there for sure. Nintendo continues to be profitable -- more so than Sony even -- despite selling less console hardware and in some cases software. This is because Nintendo's overhead is by comparison much lower. The author of the recent evaluation maintains that Nintendo's business could continue to exist as it does for "another 500 years" and remain profitable. I don't agree. When die-hard Nintendo fans claim that the company is profitable and that's all there is to it, they -- very much like Nintendo, now that I think of it -- demonstrate a glaring shortsightedness. Nintendo is profitable now, but it may not be in the future. A deeper evaluation of the company's fortunes and mind share would show that its command of the console market from the early 90s has dramatically decreased. Worse, it would also show that Nintendo loses more and more market share every generation, while both Sony and Microsoft gain it. That is bad business. A graph that shows a downward slope representing Nintendo's mind share cannot be interrupted as healthy regardless of how you look at it -- unless, that is, you turn it upside down. It's almost unfortunate, I think, that Nintendo's approach works so well in the short term. You can see the strategy in motion. Game Boy. Game Boy Color. Game Boy Advance. Game Boy Advance SP. Nintendo DS. Game Boy Micro. Six major revisions of what is essentially tech more than a decade old and every time it sells like hotcakes. It's all so cheaply manufactured, which means that Nintendo can easily make a profit -- oftentimes, a massive one. As a result, Nintendo refuses to change. But what happens to Nintendo's cost-cutting measures when a legitimate competitor steps in? Look no further than PlayStation. At a time when Nintendo was all-too happy to keep proprietary and moneymaking cartridges as its medium for N64, Sony swooped in and took control of the console market with an advanced format. And when Nintendo tried to cut costs again with GameCube, slicing away a larger storage medium again and dropping DVD-playback and a digital out altogether, Sony furthered its lead with PlayStation 2. Here, Microsoft came in and -- to Nintendo's surprise -- stole away GameCube owners, not PS2 ones. Afterward, Nintendo's piece of the overall console pie was missing a whopping bite. Perhaps a bigger problem still is that third party games sell worse and worse on Nintendo platforms, which have in recent years become so targeted to die-hard Nintendo fans who mainly want Nintendo-developed games. As a result, more and more third parties have abandoned for Microsoft and Sony, which has a huge impact on overall hardware sales. Grand Theft Auto 3 sold PlayStation 2 systems. Splinter Cell sold Xbox consoles. Whether it says so publicly or not, Nintendo is not happy being number three in the console market. But it put itself there by refusing to take risks on hardware, which is exactly what the most recent evaluation of the company's business side cites as a positive move. Short term profits. But if Nintendo continues to lose more and more market share where consoles are concerned, will there come a time when its reach is too insignificant to sustain profitability? I'm not saying it's going to happen. I'm merely playing devil's advocate. If there's a point to all of this, it's that Nintendo's business model is not nearly as shiny and happy as it appears to be in the short term.[/quote] It's obvious Nintendo is the only company easily making a profit on its hardware as well as its software. It took Sony quite some time to pick up on PS2's hardware losses. PSP is losing money because of its hardware costs still. As far as I know, Xbox has yet to catch up either. Repeatedly he mentions things like "Nintendo is doing bad business because they're not number one!" Yet, when I look at it from a business angle, I don't know how anyone can possibly agree with him. It's obvious Matt never knows much of what he's talking about from a business angle to begin with. If Nintendo is the only one pulling in profits with no major issues as of right now, why are they the ones doing it "wrong"? No, they're not always doing exactly what I want, but they do manage a continued existance despite it. When GameCube is in third place and Nintendo is still doing remarkably well with it in comparison to the other two consoles from a [I]purely money perspective[/I], where does bad business come in? I think Matt (and other people) equate market share with profits and that's the end of it. It works in theory, but when you have a bad business model otherwise, it's not always beneficial. The idea that making money over the [I]entire[/I] course of your system's development is only good for "the short term" as Matt says just does not make sense. Nintendo is losing marketshare in the console world, true. That's never a good thing... yet when the company ahead by well over two dozen million units is pulling in less profit by their business model after nearly a decade, I have to wonder who exactly is approaching things badly here. We'll see what happens. I do agree with the genral idea presented in here by Bloodseeker and James that if costs continue to exceed profits (even if they're eventually made up) there's going to be some major problems. I am sure 360 will be losing some money through its design, but MS seems to be coming up with varying sources of revenue for the thing (the system, games, Live, download fees, etc). On the other hand, Sony has this freaking monster of a system coming out that's production costs will likely be astronomical. Revolution by its nature probably won't be very expensive for us or Nintendo. Being most powerful is great for gamers (assuming the best games come out on it, which is a gamble either way), but it obviously isn't always for business (first party or third; major or independant). I can't really think of another sector in electronics that goes through this level of price fixing in this day and age. It's going to catch up sooner or later. Whether or not this means a "crash", I have no idea. Like I said, I don't see any problems being on the level of what happened in Atari's day, quite honestly. Games are a bigger part of general life than they were back then, surprisingly. Today's companies don't put all their livelihood into one license based title that is shoddily developed (unless their Acclaim -- they're gone now for obvious reasons lol). Personally, I think there will be a shake-out, but not necessarily a crash.

[QUOTE=Bloodseeker]But over the course of 5 years, that's not very many. And when you consider that most people don't enjoy every genre, you can take a few off of that list. But you're missing the point. My point is that is that once you play those, you start to feel like you're playing the same game over and over again with little tweaks here and there, and I don't know about you, but I stop buying when it gets like that. Its the reason why the only genre that I've bought more than 3 games in with this last generation are RPGs.[/QUOTE] The problem with this argument is that people can easily toss it right back at RPGs. Most use the same basic gameplay models. Go here, talk to these NPCs, run around, get in turn based fights. There's been some action based, realtime enhancements, but that fits into the idea of "tweaks" a lot of the time since many of those said battle systems are not exactly unique to begin with since they base themselves heavily off of eachother. This would lead me to believe you get most of your value out of characters and story. Not all people do. There are also games that aren't RPGs that have these same qualities. You can't really apply personal opinion on games you tend to prefer as to why every other game has gotten redundant. satan665's example of a series regurgitating itself is one thing. I mean, I get tired of a series when it does little new to itself and feels like a "roster update" like with sports games sometimes. However, this doesn't make sense for what I'm reading here in my opinion. You're applying this idea across entire genres and over broad ranges of companies. I don't see how that works because it just takes into account largely just your personal preferences.

[quote name='Bloodseeker']Every genre with the exception of RPGs and Fighting can be summarized in 3 or 4 games. You play those, you've played them all. Sure they have tweaks, but at the core, they're pretty much the same thing.[/quote] I think this is [I]incredibly[/I] over generalizing and shortsighted. I can say nearly every RPG is the same style with some different stories plopped in, but that doesn't work. There will always be clones, sure, but to claim what you're claiming here is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. The online issue is a null point really when Nintendo's plans call for free online play, Sony's plans call for free online play and MS charges only $50 a month for some pretty decent services (not to mention every first party game currently comes with a free two month Live voucher). [quote name='Bloodseeker']First, about how long was the average game 5 years ago? If memory serves me right, the average time for a single player game was about 25-60 hours, right? Even action games ran for at least 20. Now what have we got? God of War, the Onimusha games, Fable, most FPS games... they all take less than 20 hours to complete if you're average. Games that take over 30 hours to complete are becoming a rarity. This isn't a good sign.[/quote] I really have no idea what games you could possibly be thinking of. I think your memory is clouded or something. Games with 50 hour main quests have never been a norm in any remote capacity. There's always been shorter games and longer games. The first time through doesn't take into consideration replayability and whatever else that many shorter games do offer. Games being shorter than 50 hours is not necessarily a bad thing as many people do not have that sort of time to commit to something. Getting to an ending should not necessarily have to require a 50 hour investment. If a game is five hours long that's one thing. Twenty is hardly bad. [quote]What's the current outlook on the cost of the next generation systems? XBOX360 is looking to be about $500, and though recent reports suggest that the PS3 will be about $350 at launch, I can't say that I buy it with all of the expensive technology that's being used to in the PS3. Most people are going to be hard pressed to spend that much on a console, especially when most of them already have the extras that Microsoft and Sony are trying to pitch as selling points.[/quote] MS is quoted as saying they're going after a $300 launch price. Sony itself has said it was looking to go under $500 for PS3. Considering these are both directly from the company I am not sure where you are getting these figures from. Whether or not you can afford or want to get something is your own perrogative. People seem to forget how expensive the N64, PS2 and Xbox were when they first hit shelves... not to mention the original Playstation. All of these have done well. Another $300 system isn't going to set a new, horrible trend. The trend already exists. [quote]I'd be willing to bet that the cost of the games are going to go up as well. I'm no specialist, but I'd be willing to bet that putting together a game's graphics at the level detail demanded by the next generation consoles is going to take some elite skills, and that hiring people with that level of skill isn't going to be cheap. And how long is it going to take to put all that mapping with photo-realism together once you do hire the right people? Time costs money when you're trying to get a product on the market. How do you make up for that lost money? You either cut the quality (in this case, the length and fine tuning) or you raise the price, or both.[/quote] Well, you don't have to be an expert to know this... You're right about rising costs and this is something that the manufacturers have wanted to address. Nintendo seems interested in making sure games can be made cheaply on their system by both big publishers and small. MS has their XNA program going that helps developers throughout the process. I'm sure Sony has something to that level as well. Games are going to get more expensive to make, yes... but games are already expensive to make and have maintained a rather stable price mark for quite some time now. Most of that cost has not been put down to the consumer as of yet. Will it? I have no idea. Activision is the only current publisher that has voiced any ideas of raising their game prices next gen to about $55 or $60. Other companies attempt to recoup these possible losses by putting out limited edition sets that cost a bit more. My basic thought here is that we have no real idea if prices will raise or not. They won't necessarily have to. Movies still cost a ridiculous amount of money to make even compared to games and last, on average, two hours. People are willing to spend $10 to watch them once in a theater, $6 to rent them for two days and another $20 or so to buy the things when they first come out. Almost any game provides longer entertainment than all three of those combined. I don't think paying more for them is necessarily something that is unexpected or surprising. The original market crash happened because people didn't care about the games. Atari had a bad business model to begin with and began putting all their money into licensed games such as ET because they thought it would sell solely based on the name. They made more copies of that game than systems people owned. This isn't an issue any more and it's not what is happening now. The idea of a gaming market crashing when every single electronics sector around it is facing higher costs and higher retail pricing schemes doesn't make much sense to me. If prices are too high, people won't buy the stuff. Markets react to these things and prices will be lowered. When it gets into a feasible price range, people will. It happens all the time with everything that can be bought or sold. This isn't a "crash"... but there are other potential things that can lead up to it. I think the idea of costs exceeding profits is something that is very likely to really damage the industry, as you mention here. Not just games, but losing profits on hardware. There's also the issue of whether or not people actually want these all-in-one media devices. I personally do not. I wonder if at some point these things are just going to turn into what is basically a simple-minded personal computer and gamers will abandon them. That alone would cause some things to pretty much collapse... although I don't see it being on the level of the big one in the 1980s.

I thought this might be worth posting. I know a few people here for sure like this band and I've noticed a few people who are using the Toadies avatars I made (or maybe they just like how they look, I don't know lol). Anyway, the Toadies are one of my favorite rock bands. I really doubt they were ever critically acclaimed, but their music is fun and full of energy. That's all that matters sometimes. There's a lot of weird themes in the songs, including some of the best morbid love stories I've heard in rock music (Possum Kingdom, Tyler, Jigsaw Girl). I have a thing for those. The music itself is very tight and I absolutely love the vocals. They have a very unique quality to them. A lot of people probably know them simply for the song Possum Kingdom. Strangely, that was a b-side for their single and wasn't really meant to be played on radio stations. Somehow it really caught on and their first LP, Rubberneck, wound up going to platinum status. Unfortunately there was a rift in the band and they broke up shortly after. Six years later they reformed and put out the album Hell Below, Stars Above. Unfortunately the time difference probably hurt them more than it should. Interscope also did very little to promote the band. They wound up completely disbanding afterwards again. A live album came out shortly after, which is pretty good. I don't know which of the two LPs I prefer. Rubberneck is largely considered better by the majority, but Hell Below Stars Above has some really excellent hard rock songs on it that I really enjoy. For those interested, the vocalist is part of a new band called The Burden Bros. They've already put out one LP and I believe another one is due this year. They're really damn good, honestly. Any one else have something to say?

I picked it up and had the leak for awhile. I actually think this album is better as well. I'm not a huge Gorillaz fan to begin with, but I do have this and the original LP. Fell Good Inc. is easily a better single than what appeared off of the last album (obviously just my opinion) which I think speaks well for the rest of the album as a whole. I think its more cohesive and just better applied. There's a far better division and utilization of the different members too, I think.

Man, I must have a different idea of what "really bad" is. To me, something doesn't outright suck just because it isn't for me. I don't care for Trigun, but I don't think it's really bad. Same goes for a lot of things, anime or not. I like Super Milk Chan. The whole point of it, to me, is only to be watched when you're super messed up and/or up way later than your body wants to allow. Hence its time slot. If people approach it expecting anything else, of course they're going to hate it. It doesn't really offer much more. As for the bad... The one that comes to mind is Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei, which was released as Digital Devil. It makes no sense in any remote capacity. Shallow characters, pointless motivations, completely random inclusions. If it wasn't for the games (which are based on novels, like this anime) I'd think everything about it was completely crap.

The buffet analogy only works when you put in the word "bland". More games doesn't necessarily mean more good titles in a lot of cases. If graphics have to look this good to be acceptable I can't see there being a huge abundance of games even from the bigger players and it's still a gamble as to whether or not they'd even be fun to play. Killzone 2 really is beyond some of the other stuff shown in a variety of ways, in my opinion. It's one thing to put some nice models on the screen. It's another to have all the insane effects on that same screen, along with those models and background stuff as well. Nothing Madden could do in its wildest dreams would require some of the things going on in that Killzone video. I don't think there will be a dramatic downgrade from those types of images personally (as mentioned Gears of Wars was physically running and looked good), but I wonder how difficult it will be to keep some of these things a norm unless all developers license good, existing engines. The one great thing about the Revolution, in my mind, is that they seem interested in keeping this system as something where even small developers could put out good games if they have good ideas. Will it work out? Who knows. Yet, if it is true, there will be a very significant price difference in creating games in many cases. If a company could make two games for the Revolution for less than the price of making one on another system, I'd have to believe they'd do it. There's also the idea of a shorter development time. I think we're also getting too entrenched in graphics in this case. The original Killzone was supposed to be a killer of other FPS games on other systems. Instead it managed to be decidedly average. It's one thing to make a game look like CG, it's another to actually make it play anything like they showed in that video. Considering the original, I don't even know how much I could anticipate this title to begin with. Xbox 360 was also running the Unreal 3 engine at a non-fluid framerate according to sites such as Gamespot. Playstation 3 apparently held up a little better. This is something that annoys me. There's a strong possibility that all of this will be ironed out by the time the games shipped, but the fact that companies are still aiming for 30 FPS annoys me. Fluidity is still being tossed out the window for more bump mapping and whatever else. As for the Xbox comment, I love the system. I was against MS getting into the fold and I still have a problem with a LOT of their ideas of where the industry should go... but they've done a lot to get up awareness and make some really great titles -- to the point that I'd actually buy a 360 as soon as I heard their teams responsible for Forza Motorsport or Rallisport Challenge 2 were making a new racer. MS in general has put out some really good games this generation. Plus, I agree thinking MS depending on Halo 2 as much as people claim is of little importance. The game did well, yeah, but that's not all there is for the thing and there has been a lot of other great selling titles. I don't even care for the title at all and I've found plenty to buy personally. It's like claiming SSBM is all that carried GameCube because it was the best selling game. It's not exactly true.

I was looking at some magazine and apparently she is directly interested in that style. She has some camera she helped design that says "Harajuku Girls" on it for whatever reason. I guess she's a specialized case compared to the more general things I was thinking of. I don't know if it would really make much of a difference in bringing this to more people's attention. Most people would watch that and just be like "oh, she's dressing strange" and leave it at that. I doubt a majority of people would even bother to look into what she got it from.

[QUOTE=Silpheed][COLOR=Blue][SIZE=1]Lets see here. Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy, oh and Final Fantasy! Good choices but I'm going to have to go with.. [SPOILER]Having to fight God in Disgaea[/SPOILER] I mean, who da thunk it? But because alot, if not most of you don't know what Disgaea is, I'll have to go with Ghaleon from Lunar Silver Story Complete. Yeah.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Somehow I doubt any more people have really played the Lunar titles than Disgaea... especially considering the latter actually did very well for a game of its type and is far more recent. Just write about the one you want lol.

A lot of Japanese modern fashion and music is an emulation and sometimes also a slight alteration of something that happened before in another country anyway. Same with most movements of this type anywhere, really. I'd question how much of this type of thing is directly stealing from this singular idea in the first place, personally. I see stuff similar to this even still (and have for as long as I can remember) in random sections of Chicago. Depends on the types of places you go. Some of the stuff I see in these linked pictures has direct resemblances to things made over the last few decades elsewhere (like weird Elton John-ish glasses... plus, remember those dumb visor sunglasses from the 80s? people wore those normally). Some people have always just dressed up and looked weird at all times lol. Although at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a direct copy of that stuff in her case. She seems to be latching on to everything lately.

[quote name='Bloodseeker']11. I HATE CINEMATIC CAMERA ANGLES! Ban em'. Eternal Darkeness didn't even sell 278 copies across the nation? It sounds like he's the one that's bullshitting this time. That's too much of a sub-abysmal number to believe. Link?[/quote] It's an obvious exaggeration to make his point. It sold something like 300,000 copies.

These are all complaints I've seen from various sources before... they're just compiled into one page. I am happy that he puts a reason why something will or will not happen, though. The AI thing, for example, has always been a matter of console design, as he states. There actually is a game about survival on an island of sorts called Survival Kids. I'm not sure if it ever came out here or not. There are also games with nearly fully destructable environments such as Phantom Dust. A lot of these types of things in games he calls for exist in some capacity... They're just not things you see a lot of for whatever reason. I don't know if it adds to the development time and cost or what. One does have to keep that aspect in mind. The patent thing brought up disgusts me as well. Patents are no longer used for what they were meant for; namely a pushing for further innovation. Now everyone comes up with a basic, vague idea and sues anyone that attempts to use any facet of that idea. It's incredibly sad.

[quote name='Pumpkin][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][COLOR="#990033"][b]I think it would have to be the Vonage commercials that sing that song from Kill Bill. Something like "Woo hoo woo hoo hooo" and it keeps going on and on and on till it gets stuck in your head. The best one is when these people are having a race with their legs tied and the guy runs into the shed. haha. classic. But yeah, that song, gets especially annoying after the 50th time you've heard it. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT'][/B][/quote] I wonder how much the 5.6.7.8's have made off of that song now. It seems to be everywhere. It's funny for a group that really is nothing special to suddenly have a burst of popularity in another country after they've already broken up... although their CDs are fun, I suppose. The most annoying commercial award automatically goes to anything involving McDonald's "I'm Lovin' It" campaign. There's not a single good one of these and a lot of them make almost no sense at all. I think my least favorite one is about DJs and how these guys hang out at a club all day and then super early in the morning they eat some McGriddles for energy. There's also that one about a drumteam that eats McDonalds after their performance. It's McDonalds and soda. It gives you nearly zero nutritional value and soda is dehydrating. How would that be a good idea? I can't even choke down their food, personally, so maybe that is part of the reason I dislike the commercials so much. They make it seem like you need to be reliant on their food at all times. That it's "cool" to be so. Don't ask me.