WFC was amazingly good, (IGN) gave it a 9.0 for example. This one should be good as well. There's no reason to think that it won't be. I don't care if the campaign is just a one playthrough for me; the MP is where it's at anyways.

The game UI worked fine for me, it is available in between games and if there was any problem joining in my buddy might have used the xbox UI to join into me but he never let on this was the case.

It's not a hard thing to do for someone who has gone to school to use and construct game coding. They just have to think it's high enough priority.

Hortey

You're not able to "party up" and build your team before matchmaking starts in the demo. You are able to in the full retail release of the game. Did you ever play WFC? This was the same in the multiplayer demo for WFC and also the same for the full retail release.

It's fairly simple; you don't have access to everything the game has in the demo. This includes teaming up with friends. There's nothing missing from the game.

No you are wrong this game seems to have taken a step back and since this is about the war, it really should be more mature based it's a freaking war. Should have blood and maybe some cursing in it, more brutal deaths, like punching through their chest or something.

Nah I'm gonna just wait for this to be cheap it's not worth 60 bucks, story looks nice but not enough meat.

davidsworld3

1. Blood? They're robots. Nowhere in anything related to Transformers have they ever had any type of "blood". Get out of the COD mindset.

2. Aside from the one curse word that I remember in the animiated movie from 1985 ("Aw, $hit, what are we going to do now?!"), when have you ever heard them cursing?

3. I had no idea you could see in the future or travel through time to already know the game doesn't have enough "meat". I highly doubt this is the case. DOTM didn't even have Escalation and only had to multiplayer modes while this sequel to WFC has everything the last game had in terms of amount of content: Escalation, multiple matchtypes, campaign as well as having (at least advertised) a deeper level of customization.

I recommend people at least rent it to give it a try. Personally I'm buying it tomorrow.

[QUOTE="Lance_Kalzas"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] I'd be careful with those. The first 5 books? Absolutely excellent.

From then on, it all goes downhill, with the author moving towards half-baked political plotlines, rather then exciting adventure and battle, and repetitively repeating actions of characters such as "Nynaeve pulled on her braid". (seriously. he uses that line 5-10 times each time the character is mentioned or involved). In the end, you read the whole series out of a sense of duty and to justify the 4000 pages you enjoyed in the first 5 books.

majoras_wrath

Eversince the new author took over, he's wrapping things up nicely and doing an excellent job of closing the series as well. I recommend reading the two Wheel of Time novels he's written.

I've heard the same thing, but that would require finishing 8-11 :cry:

We all must make sacrifices as well as suffer now and then. Books 8 to 11 aren't bad, granted they're not great either although Books 9 and 11 are the best out of those. Books 8 and 10 were the worst in the whole series.

[QUOTE="Xeogua"]

Just looked up Wheel of Time for whoever mentioned that, and I might read those next.

majoras_wrath

From then on, it all goes downhill, with the author moving towards half-baked political plotlines, rather then exciting adventure and battle, and repetitively repeating actions of characters such as "Nynaeve pulled on her braid". (seriously. he uses that line 5-10 times each time the character is mentioned or involved). In the end, you read the whole series out of a sense of duty and to justify the 4000 pages you enjoyed in the first 5 books.

Eversince the new author took over, he's wrapping things up nicely and doing an excellent job of closing the series as well. I recommend reading the two Wheel of Time novels he's written.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]If it can be demonstrated that he did it to cause violence, then yes. That is a very tricky thing to prove mind you. If i tell a mentally deficient person that the world will end unless he kills you and he goes and does it, I would consider myself to blame as well, though I did not pull the trigger. dkrustyklown

Your analogy is false. In your example, you are giving SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS to engage in an act of violence. Specifically, it's conspiracy to commit murder. Speech which involves person A telling person B to go kill person C is not protected speech. Your example consists of precisely this scenario. That's direct incitement. Direct incitment is saying something like, "Hey, you guys, go burn that building down. Revoluciooooooooooooon!", or, "Hey, shoot that guy!" downtown. That's direct incitment.

Terry Jones, however, did not engage in direct incitement. He merely expressed an opinion. Was it offensive? To some people, I'm sure that it is offensive. Does free speech include things that people say every day that offend others? It sure does. Let me give you a more accurate analogy. Person A expresses an opinion about God that Person B disagrees with very strongly. Person B then flies into a rage and starts killing random persons C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K... and so on. In this analogy, Person A is not responsible for the actions of person B, even if he knew that he would react with such violence or even if he wanted him to react that way. Person A has a right to express his opinion, regardless of how anyone reacts.

To curtail the free expression of opinion due to the violent reactions of some people creates a "heckler's veto", by which the loudest and most violent people are able to stifle expression by engaging in violence every time their fragile sensibilities are offended. You can't let one group of people have a heckler's veto, because then everyone else will line up to get their own heckler's veto and violence would become an effective and legitimate tool of debate.

Do you want every debate to be won by the side that is most willing to smash faces? No? Well that's what happens when you permit the heckler's veto of violent and fanatical madmen.

This exactly. Couldn't have said it better. We all make our own choices in life and you should only be accountable for the consequences of those choices. I for one do not want a "heckler's veto" in my society and I can't see how or why anyone else would condone it either.

[QUOTE="Lance_Kalzas"]There are far worse alien invasion movies out there. I guess everyone should try to have some perspective so for those saying it's absolutely horrible.TGM_basic

Seriously. It's like everyone just heard certain critics say it was horrible, so they went in wanting it to be horrible. They had already made up their mind that they were going to hate the movie before it even began, so of course with that mindset you'll inevitable hate the movie.

Or hell, maybe some of them actually did legitimately hate it. I dunno, though the opening sequences aside, I don't see where the hatred for this movie stems from. Maybe everyone saying it sucked got fed up with said opening and left the theater before the movie actually kicked in? I know I was considering doing just that, but I'm glad I decided to stick it out, since the movie actually is good after that.

I didn't really even mind the beginning. I mean, movies HAVE to start somewhere, don't they? Why not right before the fighting breaks out? It builds up to it rather nicely in my opinion. Not too slow and not too fast. There has to be some plot development behind it. The aliens landed in sort of a stealthy way by making us think they were meteors.

I'm at a loss as to what people actually expect from a science fiction movie about aliens landing on our planet and trying to take it over. Since we have no idea what aliens look like, act like, etc how can we really expect anything? Point being, I enjoyed the movie for what it was.