All of the above... all at once.

Facebook but I don't really care for it much.

I think a lot of it just has to do with what you are used to. I used to only play 3rd person games so it felt weird for me just to be a hand holding a gun. But then I started playing 1st person games and got used to the interface. Today I prefer 1st person games because I think they control better overall (for example: I don't think 3rd person games will ever be able to totally solve the crappy camera angle problem) .

Note I don't think immersion is a key difference between 1st and 3rd person. I don't agree that immersion is automatically better in a 1st person games. 3rd person games are just as capable of drawing you into the gameworld as 1st person. It's the gameplay and atmosphere that are most important for immersion, not the camera perspective.

LightTheWay

I agree, I don't think the first-person view automatically achieves better immersion than third-person but I think it's easier to achieve with first-person.

Great gameplay, story and atmosphere will draw you in just as much in a third-person view especially if they put a lot of work into the feel of the camera, character control and other visual effects.

Both perspectives have their pros and cons and the developers have to decide what best fits their game. I personally prefer third-person especially if the game has an interesting protagonist and interesting environments/levels.

if > 0

Seriously though I think young kids definitely shouldn't be playing games much if at all. If they are they should also be exposed to other activities as well, especially ones involving physical activity and outdoors.

I hate auto-aim with a passion; it completely ruins multiplayer and is detrimental to most single player experiences as well and that goes for aim-assist as well.

Whats so complicated about moving a stick around?

Movie based games are usually only produced to milk the popularity of the movie and they tend to have a very short development time.

Game based movies are pretty much all bad and one reason I think is because your taking away the main aspect of the game, what makes it a game and what makes it fun; the interactivity. Even if the story is great, the plot and characters and everything, it's the fact that you are interacting with that story, even if it's very linear, that makes you enjoy that story and the game.

I think the main reason though is because most game-movies have been based off games with little or no story, or very obscurer stories, like fighting games. They also tend to have terrible directors, terrible actors and I think tend to be aimed at younger audiences because thats probably who the people with the money think video games are for.

Edit: Also Dragon Ball Z was a cartoon/anime(?) and I think a comic before that, before it was a game.

To develop a Linux exclusive is kind of foolish since it's not the best market for games and making a small game run on Windows, Mac OS and Linux is not difficult, so why only support the platform that will be the least profitable?

When I first used Steam I downloaded a demo and it didn't work; first the download stopped for some reason then when it finished downloading it just gave me a error when I tried to run it.

Maybe it's just the Mac version since it's new but it just seamed extremely buggy. I didn't really intend to buy any games I just wanted to try it out and play some demos of games that have recently been ported to Mac.

Star Wars episode I but it's been awhile since I've seen it. I think it had a much better plot than the other prequels and minus the metachlorians(?), Jaja Binks and a better actor to play Anakin and it would have been a much better movie.

Considering that conflict was basically confined to Europe, no it was not. Like I said, a European war with non-European participants. Who were the biggest players in the war? Besides the US and the Ottoman Empire, there was the UK (plus the British Empire), Russia, France, Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. What do all those countries have in common? They are European. Your picture is incredibly misleading in terms of accurately representing the reality about WWI.

[QUOTE="Timmeus"]

"none of those wars... kill as many people as wars in the 20th century" is not misleading it's true, a higher population doesn't make the statement false it's just one of the reasons for the increase.

GabuEx

It is a statement that is technically true, yet the hidden implication that underlies it is false. It would be like the statement that India has the most murders per year in the world. It is a true statement, yet the hidden implication (that India is the most murderous country in the world) is absolutely false.

I'm not saying that every war is global now, I'm saying there's constant warfare going on in the world even with "staggering progress towards peace" and before 1914 there were no wars remotely as bad as WWI & WWII.

Timmeus

WWI was a hundred years ago; WWII was seventy years ago. You cannot use wars from a hundred years ago and seventy years ago to make a case about war today, especially when the countries in those wars are now strong allies and economic partners. The world today is, as I have said from the very beginning, probably more peaceful than it has ever been in human history. There has always been constant warfare in the world.

Well I'm not going to argue with you since you've already made up your mind, no matter what I say you've already chosen what you believe as have I and thats our choice.

Joshua 24:15 "Now if it is bad in your eyes to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve, ... But as for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah."