also (just thought i would add yet another rant), why is it that it's easier to cosolidate software companies than it is hardware companies? shouldn't it be the other way around? i'm thinking of an anology along the lines of not being able to read a certain book unless you bought the "right" glasses for it.

again, just an example, but overall; what does it say about this medium in general? how serious should we treat it, and how much of our time should we devote to it?

I will apologize in advance if this comes across as being a little melodramatic, but in light of the recent news of EA's "offer" to take two I'm feeling slightly pessimistic about the future of games in general; if not just for the lack of creativity being gradually siphoned out, but mainly because of the blatant display of corporate "strong-arming" thats, seemingly, being tolerated througout the industry. Now before anyone here thinks i'm about to dive head first into yet another hate-fueled rant against EA... well, i may take a few glancing blows, but my real concern is aimed at the disorder of this industry's priorities, which are affecting--if not dictating altogether--the creative growth and direction that this medium is heading.

On a side note, I can't tell you how many times I've seen the same promotional advertisement for the same game over and over in certain "stores". It's annoyingly hypnotic I'm afraid! It also occurred to me that gaming ads are essentially useless. I'm sorry, but games aren't going to help me how to think or feel--at least not like a good book or a film would--so I don't understand the need for someone else to convey some extraneous piece of information that I wouldn't be able to get on my own by simply watching some actual gameplay footage, minus the "pitching" thank you much! If anything, this just serves as an example of how consumer driven the medium has become. I play videogames to simply relax and indulge my senses, so why in the h*ll do I need somebody else selling me on something that already comes naturally? What a waste of time, kind of like this paragraph.

Anyway, returning to my original thesis, here's a sample of the letter, which you can read more about here http://www.gamespot.com/news/6186637.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;2 and here http://www.gamespot.com/news/6186639.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1

"Our strong preference is to conduct a private negotiation," the letter stated. "If you are unwilling to proceed on that basis, however, we may pursue other means, including the public disclosure of this letter, to bring our offer and the compelling value it represents to the attention of Take-Two's shareholders."

I can't understand how the exposure of a letter like this doesn't affect the commitment of EA's own sharholders. Basically, do as we say are get ran over. Whether you simply play videogames for your own amusment, or your just starting out in the industry, this has to elicit some amount of discontent in the community, and if it does good--it means you're still human!

Credit card debt is a system that funnels money away from idiots to more intelligent people.thisishowtowin

funny...

how about this: how come the same explanation that is commonly used to describe God's omnipitent presence within, around, inside, outside, the infinite universe can't be used to describe the universe itself? like when i ask someone a hypothetical questionssuch as, "where did god come from?", most answer quite plainly that he just "is", and his presence is infinite and therefor cannot be analyzed in anyway the human mind could even possibly comprehend. it seem as though if people wanted to open their mind to the possibility, they'd realize, that those same infinite principles that define their god are actually quite plausible in describing our infinite universe. personally, i think the universe just "is".

i don't complain, i'm in credit card debt, i spent money i didn't have at the time. from the comments on this topic, most of you would probably look down your boat-tanned noses at me, but maybe not. as i said before, i don't complain about it, but somehow i don't see how critizing people that struggle financially is helpful? i don't know.

thanks for the response. corruption will just have to wait until after mario baby!

so i just picked up a wii a couple days ago, and i absolutely love it. anyway, after picking up metroid corruption inoticed something that may or may or may not be an issue with the remote. after calibrating the remote (i think i did it correctly)the wii remote still behaves a bit inaccuratelywhen i play corruption. basically when i try to center the reticle on the screen i always feel i have to point the wii remote just off to the right, barely. its nit-picky i know, but i just want to know if this is a common occurence, or rather something that's wrong with my controller.

also, i should add that the wii system and remote weren't brand new when i bought it, though they were both in really good condition. well, thanks in advance to anyone that can help shed some light on this.

[QUOTE="studnothin"]

i thought this was a joke topic at first. but now i see thati was verywrong.

look, i'm all for difference of opinion and all that crapola, but clearly this is not an issue of which game you should get, but rather, why in gods name is blacksite even an option for you? aesthetics and sci-fi themes aside, this game has got to be one of the worst, clumsily constructed games i've seen in quite a while. thepooruse of the unreal engine and just bad overal design was reflected in an equally horrendous and awkward interview with one of the developers play testing this POS.

yes, i understand its based on a fairly popular franchise which has developed a sort of cult following, but you must understand that none of that will matter when you're actually playing the full game and come to that sinking realization that you're playing yetanother crude, hackneyed sci-f'n shooter you wasted 60 bucks on.

ghstbstr

How can you or anyone say something like that since the game has not yet been released? As for me just based off of the demo I thought that the demo for BlackSite: Area 51 was great, and I thought that it was somewhat better the the COD4 beta.

without sounding overly pompous, i've developed a sort of "eye" for these things. as far as design goes, i have no doubt that this game will blow, though maybe someone else will find some value in the game,perhaps even in its fault. however, the impression i got was thatyou were on a limited budget, and could only afford one of these three games at the moment.

i will personally apologize to you or anyone else i may have offended if this game comes out and recieves a fair amount of positive criticism. i personally think it will be unanimously panned, but hey, that's just my observation on the development of blacksite thus far.

COD4 will have some pretty inspiring MP, thoughMass Effectlooksto have one of themost compelling campaigns for an rpg to date.

i thought this was a joke topic at first. but now i see thati was verywrong.

look, i'm all for difference of opinion and all that crapola, but clearly this is not an issue of which game you should get, but rather, why in gods name is blacksite even an option for you? aesthetics and sci-fi themes aside, this game has got to be one of the worst, clumsily constructed games i've seen in quite a while. thepooruse of the unreal engine and just bad overal design was reflected in an equally horrendous and awkward interview with one of the developers play testing this POS.

yes, i understand its based on a fairly popular franchise which has developed a sort of cult following, but you must understand that none of that will matter when you're actually playing the full game and come to that sinking realization that you're playing yetanother crude, hackneyed sci-f'n shooter you wasted 60 bucks on.