Vesica_Prime's forum posts

#1 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

No, Skyrim's mainquest was horrible and even Call of Duty has a better told narrative.

#2 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Because when I pay money for a product that is being sold and not given to me on a silver platter for free, I will damn right give my opinion on it whether you like it or not because it's not a gift horse, it's a product that I bought with my disposable income you idiot.

And to answer your question, maybe because I want my decisions to actually impact the world or/and situation rather than be given a Hobson's choice when the developer clearly stated multiple times that my decisions have an impact on the game? Developers should stick with making linear games if they don't have decision making that actually has an impact.

megadeth1117

Whoa there, you should probably post before or after, not during your period tough guy.

Sorry that I fight vitriol with vitriol and can't pull off such witty and original remarks whilst circlejerking instead of rebutting the comment.

#3 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

Because when I pay money for a product that is being sold and not given to me on a silver platter for free, I will damn right give my opinion on it whether you like it or not because it's not a gift horse, it's a product that I bought with my disposable income you idiot.

And to answer your question, maybe because I want my decisions to actually impact the world or/and situation rather than be given a Hobson's choice when the developer clearly stated multiple times that my decisions have an impact on the game? Developers should stick with making linear games if they don't have decision making that actually has an impact.

#4 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

The Elder Scrolls - A developer that can actually do some QA.

#5 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

My problem with that review was that the reviewer criticized the game for the fact that you have to know the game and be good at it (Quake, Unreal Tournament style style) and have good teammates and cooperation to win and can't go gung-ho Call of Duty rambo style.


"Another problem is that because each side has only a single commander, it's critical that this person be attentive, competent, and unflappable. Unfortunately, a fact of life in online gaming is that some people are apathetic, unskilled, and prone to quitting matches in a rage.
All that said, Natural Selection 2 is filled with promise if you can put in the hours of grinding necessary to learn the units, maps, controls, and balance
Game is bad because to win you have to have competent players. Yeah I'll let that sink in."

And it's horribly well written, here's a direct quote in context.

"experienced players largely ignore anyone colored green and shout unintelligible Natural Selection cant at each other as the bullets fly. "

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

#6 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

:lol: I'm religious, and I don't believe that at all. The world is billions of years old. Check carbon dating guys. Wow..a religious person who actually believes in science! The dawn of a new age is here! :roll:ShadowsDemon

This really, you shouldn't really generalize a entire group of people. Nor should you assume everyone wants religion cramed into the public school system. Hell 40% of American scientists ARE theistic/religious. And please don't think the pig ignorant view that Christians are to science what vampires are to garlic. Genetics, the Big Bang theory, physics and chemistry all had immense contribution done by Christians. Islam also contributed to science with trigonometry, algebra as well as medicine. Ever wonder why our numbers are considered "Arabic?"

With all due respect, it's the equivalent of stereotyping atheists as something awful and it's insulting to assume that ALL people of faith are of animalistic and substandard intelligence or "f***ing idiots'.

And try doing some researchbefore going on a blanket statement.

#7 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

I FEEL that the voting age should be pushed to 21 because at 18, many teens have not a slight clue why they are voting, and will vote just cause with no significant reason.

And many older citizens don't do so too? Why punish the younger population for crimes that their peers commit yet leave out the older population who's peers also commit the crime of ignorance?

They'll resort to voting for what seems "popular" where they live.This level of ignorance is not how our leaders should be elected.

Ignorance is the enemy of democracy and one of the greatest crimes against democracy. And is spread throughout ALL age groups.

As for the elders, they also can be ignorant about it but who outnumbers who more?

So it's okay for a small group of a population to vote out of ignorance because they're a small group? It's okay that crimes are committed as long as a small group commits them? How is that justice? To not punish those who are guilty simply because they're the lesser population?

Who is more bound to be ignorant?

Ahhh ageism, typical ageism. Stereotyping and discrimination just like the days of old where men of colour were bound to have a instinctive urge to rape and murder.

And next time just say "hate", and stop using pretentious words like abhor.

Arguing about words, you're really splitting hairs are you?

Zensem

#8 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

Who's talking about Democrats? These 18 year olds who voted today couldn't tell you the difference between a Democrat and a banana.

Zensem

They vote with ignorance in favour of the Democrats as you've described, which you abhor so I'll label them as "Democrat voters." Anyway back to the question, what makes a young person voting with ignorance any more disgusting than an older person voting with ignorance? Or is it that those young people you've described voted against YOUR political party rather than in favour that you abhor?

#9 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="Zensem"]

What's with the bashing? He has a point. Alot of you don't have Facebook/Twitter/Social lifes in general, you wouldn't understand his frustration. Many 18 year olds are so clueless about why they would vote for someone. It's been nothing but ignorance on Facebook today. I heard one guy say he wasn't going to vote for Romney because he looks like the devil...I mean how can some of you NOT see the picture here?

Zensem

And some older members of society wouldn't vote for Obama because he's "black, Arab, Muslim, Communist etc." You point?

I'm not generalizing Republicans, I'm just simply stating that both age brackets have pig-ignorant people and not restricted to the younger generations.

But these older people aren't on Twitter spreading their ignorance. They mostly keep it to themselves.

Yet they take their ignorance to the voting ballot just like the young "Democrats" you've described also bringing their ignorance to the voting ballot.

What's the difference? That the ignorance is in favour of your political party? Is that what makes it okay for you?

#10 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

What's with the bashing? He has a point. Alot of you don't have Facebook/Twitter/Social lifes in general, you wouldn't understand his frustration. Many 18 year olds are so clueless about why they would vote for someone. It's been nothing but ignorance on Facebook today. I heard one guy say he wasn't going to vote for Romney because he looks like the devil...I mean how can some of you NOT see the picture here?

Zensem

And some older members of society wouldn't vote for Obama because he's "black, Arab, Muslim, Communist etc." You point?

I'm not generalizing Republicans, I'm just simply stating that both age brackets have pig-ignorant people and not restricted to the younger generations.