Icewolf
-
Posts
6,113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Icewolf
-
-
I once read a debate on a White Supremacist forum (that was linked to me, its not my normal hangout) over whether having once dated a black man a white girl could return to the enlightened...43 pages of bitter argument with each other followed.
-
Hmm.
Btw, for the OP the Rains of Castemere seems appropriate given his choice of song.
-
I don't think there is any song that really defines my life. Trying to define anyones life in three or four minutes is going to be impossible. Understanding my own life needs a song that combines a fondness of scrabble, being tormented by strippers and the spiraling sadness that despite 4 years of university during which I had to write many essays on key issues of the day, I am still flummoxed by the question "why are you suitable for this job?"
Anyone got a song for that? -
Its just a round about way of saying family don't love you no matter what. Spend a week in the divorce courts and child protection hearings and you become a lot more cynical.
-
I would advise you to pay the tech. Its a bad start to start of in debt. Just arrange to do some 3 mill 50 deals and use the profits to pay off your tech debt.
-
The original Rainbow Six had a fair few features that made it quite technical, such as the planning phase, the use of stealth, the use of teams etc. You could also lay traps and had to shield hostages from fire etc. Splinter cell was also quite good for that, although less about fighting and more about sneaking.
Battlefield with its squads, its commander role and support functions was also relatively good for that.
What makes a FPS good in my view is generally linked to how much fire your character can withstand. DO you shoot massive amounts until one is dead or do a few well placed rounds do the trick? The less armored your character the more teamwork is needed and the slower paced the fighting. -
What does that even mean?
I was racing a fast catamaran and they where in slower boats taking part in a slow speed race (comparatively). Both races took place on the same course. On the approach to a mark they and two other boats formed a three sided box around me (there was no way for me to turn through the open side meaning I had to go the last 100m to the mark at about 1/3rd of the pace my boat was capable off, allowing my father to gain massively.
-
I think we look for different things out of FPS. I prefer more technical combat. I disliked the HALO series because it was very much "BLAM BLAM BLAM" and not enough use of cover, use of teamwork etc etc. That and the tech you got to use was actually less than Battlefield 2, let alone Battlefield 2142. The original Rainbow Six was also quite good for that, the later one I played (can't remember which) less so but still good.
I can't remember the quote, but in HALO a thousand crystal shards can pierce your body and you can still right an autobiography. In Rainbow six someone showing your friend a picture of a gun lands you in intensive care.
Exaggerated, but in the original Rainbow Six it was absolutely one shot kill. Prolonged firefights meant you lost people. -
No FPS is realistic. In World War I 70% of casualties were caused by artillery. That statistic has only changed with the serious addition of air power. I played with the battlefield 2 mod that was supposed to be realism, but not enough to get a feel for it. One thing I can say is that most gamers would hate a game were rifles are so inaccurate and tanks are so powerful.
That said, there are some ways that modern warfare could be converted into something interesting to play. I kind of like the idea of playing a FPS through a level that contained the following classes of enemies;
-Civilians (not to be shot at)
-Rioters armed with molotovs and rocks
-Insurgents armed with rifles and rocket launchers.
Basically play the role of a soldier in such a city, having to decide what each person was and how to engage them. You could be part of a platoon sized unit equiped with rifles, grenades, riot shields and batons.
That could make an interesting and challenging game.
-
My mother and brother once boxed me in during a race...love you say?
-
Flaming in 3...2...1...
-
Agreed withe 1 and 2 but not 3. If we made all of the elections on one day, it would cause a huge cluster$%&@ and make a bigger mess than we already have.
Your current mess is primarily the result of only 1 year in every 4 being a time when the US congress cares about governing, with the rest being spent caring about elections. The other fixes are basically minor compared to that.
-
The US is so undemocratic at the moment you could actually achieve both. I would suggest the following;
1) Make the presidential election a direct vote. No more electoral college
2) Make one chamber a Proportional representation election, and the other elected the manner of the current House of Representatives, with the districts redrawn by an independent panel to undo jerrymandering.
3) Move all elections to once every 4 years, on the same date.
That would still lead to the US being more democractic than currently.
-
It won't because the US political system punishes that. (As does the UK system, but in a different way). You have at most 1 year in 4 when you can do that and not face being shredded in a re-election campaign.
-
-
The US government suffers from the fact that the Balance of Powers requires compromise. This creates a problem that the definition of a compromise is that it is about right when everybody is equally unhappy. Coupled with elections every two years and ridiculously long campaigns for them, you have an ungovernable country.
Seriously. The US presidential election cycle lasts about 18 months. Mid term elections about six months. That means of a 4 year term, 2 years are spent on the election cycle. You get 18 months grace after a presidential election, then six months campaign, then six months off, then 18 months presidential campaigning. It engineers the type of political stagnation that happens in proportional representation countries with multiple collapsing coalitions and elections whilst only having two parties. How can you make a compromise that will anger the people voting for you in primaries when you are going to be facing them in a few months time?
I would say that given the length of time when campaigning takes place, and the time before that when representatives look over their shoulder at approaching elections, less than a third of a 4 year period is spent on governance rather than electioneering.
Compare that to the UK with national elections that last 5 years, less issue over divide between lower and upper houses and see how more effective the government is at getting things done, and also the fact that parties are more willing to compromise on issues. Why? Because a decision 2 or 3 years into a parliament is unlikely to still be hurting them when the election campaigning starts at 4 1/2 years.
As for political parties, they exist for the same reasons that companies exist. 10 people working together can do more than 10 people working as individuals. A candidate with a party behind them has funds to research policy options, create campaign strategies etc etc. A MP from the Labour party can use their parties think tanks to draw policy on every conceivable issue without having to research every issue on their own-an impossible task.
-
Don't be taken in. The entire event was a plot to cover up the fact the Towers were never built. WAKE UP SHEEPLE.
-
Don't give them ideas, Prodigal Moon...
But seriously, if the content of this entry is the reasoning behind having treaties, it's horribly flawed. Treaties don't really provide safety.
I suspect that they have more to do with having something to do in peace times and with having an excuse to participate in war times.
I wasn't considering if playing the game this way keeps you safe. Obviously in this game there is a clear risk of engaging in politics. My point is that certain people have created what they regard as the best way to play politics, and others follow it because it guarantees they don't do too disasterously.
-
... one would think that a simple adjustment to one web's configuration would create enough damage to the trust at the heart of the web, ultimately dissolving the web. Then, one would simply mobilize all effective capabilities, be it their own military or the combined efforts with others, to engage and eliminate the exposed target.
For example, revealing that a nation which opposed you for some time actually has questionable ethics towards both it's people and it's defeated enemies would shatter the trust developed and hence, crush the web system. These conflicting webs are very difficult to sustain. Just ask Switzerland in world war two. If anyone made one move to discouraging the theory that the swiss were neutral, the rumor would engulf them like a wild fire.
I don't think there is a heart of the web to be shattered.
-
Well with the number of university students around banning people for sharing networks would be extreme.
-
Hello and welcome to cybernations. Please ignore the trolls.
Currently harmony is not present here. War and hell is present.
-
OK, well the cloud is a way to acces the internet and essentially, when configured correctly, is essentially a socil network hub which sony plans to take advantage of. It actually is brilliant, it will add a new dimension that will
KILLdiminish the PC Master Race.Cloud is a way to store things. It is not a way to access the internet.
It is good if you have multiple devices and want to access the same data on all of them. It is also good if you are a criminal and want your data to be immune from physical raids.
It is not good if you have one device. Consoles are not cross compatible (Unless xbox games run on the Playstation now) so it serves no purpose for the customer. You have one PS4 and harddrive space is hardly an expensive commodity these days.
For single player Cloud is simply a way to try and stop piracy. That and nothing more.
-
This is what this conversation reminds me of.
-
I still use my original wii. No other console comes close to what I need it for. Which is having something we can play after consuming copious amounts of alcohol and then fall about laughing at each other. We tried to do it with the xbox and rockband but the drumkit turned out not to be very durable and we gave up.
I suppose what I am trying to get at is that graphics, controller ability blah blah blah are not what you really want in a gaming system. What you want is a game that will be fun. The preview of destiny reads like a new HALO. And HALO 1 was just as good as all the other HALOs (which means not at all unless drunk with 4 friends all laughing at the person who just drove a car off a cliff).
So my question is. Will the PS4 actually be fun? Forget all the fancy tech. The Wii did very well not because of the tech (which was all outdated anyway) but because they knew that games had to be fun. And I'm not sinking the price of weekend trip to Amsterdam or Brussels on a games console unless it will be fun.
Me Debating with some White Supremacists
in Brother Malcolm Speaks
A blog by Malik Shabazz in General
Posted
Anyway, yes it will be beating your head against a brick wall. They are so far removed from the normal world view that they will not only ignore your arguments, they simply won't make sense to them.