it's lucky really you don't really encounter this sort of behaviour on the Escapist
that's right, i'm an escapist fanboy now
that's right, i'm an escapist fanboy now
I don't mind the shield system, specifically in the first one, because they used that in combination with a health system (if you lost your shield, there were still 5 blocks? of health you had to go through) which justified the super-totally-awesome-chocolate-coated-super-armour and worked well into the game mechanics and story.WOPR said:Yeah, I saw legends and liked it... also spartan 1337 (I see what they did there) was hilariousOkysho said:*snip*
I also liked Red vs Blue (the original Blood Gulch Chronicles)
Still don't like the games though... mainly because the health regen bugs me
Douche-bag argument: "DUDE! IT'S NOT HEALTH, IT'S A HIGH TECH SHIELD!"
...is it what determines how many more bullets you can take before you die?
yes?
THEN IT'S HEALTH! (or armor which also doesn't regenerate last I checked... imagine CS:S with regen armor O_O)
...but yeah; same situation
still don't like the games
liked the series' though
anyways I lost my train of thought...
yup
I personally would have to disagree on that point. They're not exactly alternatives, as they're bound to different systems. For someone that doesn't have a Playstation, playing gears would cost far less than killzone, and vice versa. Additionally, if they already had both, they could very well buy both, disposable income permitting. They're no more alternatives than any other non-essential goods of similar price.Flying Dagger said:We judge Gears of war by killzone because they are alternatives. You can't say "New Vegas has bugs, yet pong never glitched" without looking ridiculous, you compare to what you know.
given that Bob's Anti Thinker is inherently satire, and goes against previously established personna it is kind of unfair to point to this as Bob being wrong. He was after all suppoused to be int hat case. as far as Metroid and "Worst Person" you seem to be missing the general point of this episode.oneshotfinchy said:I only call fanboy when somebody says something is objectively wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, just because it stars their favourite character or franchise. That or criticise their opposition rather than their arguments. That or criticise something they have very limited experience in.
*cough*
http://screwattack.com/videos/GAME-ANTITHINKER-History-of-Video-Games
and so my quest continues(Que Bruce Banner walking away music).Fappy said:I'm actually in a Mass Communications History class at the moment, so thanks for the little primer for whenever we start talking about the FCC.
Anyway I completely agree with your point and have always been perplexed by the "console war" more specifically.
Hey I got a secret for you...Ashoten said:Woot! Now I can say I love the Star Wars prequels without being told that the originals were better.The originals were better!
Say what, now?HankMan said:We're better than this "fair play" bullshit.
...
And Yes, that DOES mean I'm Anti 4chan.
Ah, so true. So true.MovieBob said:Fair Game
This week, Bob weighs the pros and cons of playing fair.
Watch Video
Uhh what "cult classic" even at the best of times wasn't a Box Office failure? I doubt Scott would have done much better if it was up against "The Last Exorcism". If you make a movie for a niche group you are going to attract that niche group (don't forget "nerds" are only the majority on the internet because they are the most vocal). Couple that with a polarizing star (lets face it either you love him or hate him) and you will be lucky to break even. If you make a movie with wider appeal you will attract a wider audience.Delusibeta said:To be fair, it's less The Expendables and more Universal executives deciding to pit Pilgrim, which would be a cult classic at the best of times (like pretty much everything else Wright has directed) against what was probably the most hyped movie of the year that caused Pilgrim's failure.Pugiron said:This from someone that could not tolerate people liking the Expendables because that meant they were responsible for the failure of Scott Pilgrim.
The small fact that The Expendables was distinctly meh [http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-expendables] compared to the better reception [http://www.metacritic.com/movie/scott-pilgrim-vs-the-world] Pilgrim generated didn't help matters. Bob did have a point: the sheep factor was a large portion of the Expendables' success, regardless of the movie's quality (although the same argument could be applied to anything that is hugely hyped, e.g. Call of Duty, Duke Nukeum Forever, The King's Speech, whatever).