Mr. McFluffermutton

That's... absolutely hysterical. I wonder how that could possibly end up happening.

I see Darksiders is only $10. Was the game any good?

I feel like co-op would ruin the game. Or, at least I feel that running around in the wild, or sneaking my way through a dungeon just wouldn't be the same.

Nothing says mental rehabilitation like steroids.

There was a gay sex scene in Dragon Age, wasn't there?

You killed a dog and now you want to skin it or something? Or maybe you want its liver? lol, that's just unsightly.

I think the real problem with the planets is that there just wasn't anything on them. There weren't rocks or trees or anything other than spiky terrain. That's what made it kind of a drag after a while. Still though, at least I felt like I was exploring the universe, rather than being directed to the end of my quest. Shifty-Looking Cow ftw. Would Liara count as a gay romance?

When I kill a dog or something and get money. What's up with that.

That seems to be the case with a lot of people. I just felt like ME2 was missing what made ME1 so good. Now I may not bother picking up ME3.

lol, yes it does. What's funny is that two of those aren't even sold on Steam.

What I'd most like to see is the words "emotionally" and "engaging" never spoken by a Bioware employee again. None of the games that have ever come out of Bioware have ever been emotional, and their success rate with engaging isn't that great either...

I played the first game through three times. I couldn't bring myself to let Kaiden live a single time.

I hated traffic checking. Traffic Attack was fun, but for races, traffic checking made same way traffic too safe. I didn't have to bother dodging half the cars anymore. That's why I didn't really like it. And yeah, I think everyone misses Crash mode.

I work at an assisted living home. I serve old people food.

Ramirez, use your laser designator to call in artillery on those vehicles! Ramirez, take down that chopper! Ramirez, get that briefcase! Ramirez, clip my toe nails! Ramirez, get on that sniper rifle! Ramirez, get in the chopper! Ramirez, get on the minigun! Good job, Ramirez.

That's not actually accurate, that gets back to what I was saying earlier about the FCC reclassifying the internet. Previously, the FCC had classified ISPs as something else (I don't know all the legal specifics) which it did not have the authority to regulate, and so when it tried to regulate them the court said that they can't do that. Now the FCC has reclassified ISPs into the same grouping as telephone companies, and they do have the authority to regulate that classification. So unless and until the courts say that that is an improper classification, the FCC rules will stand. And it is unlikely that the courts will do that, because the FCC has broad discretion to classify methods of communication. I knew the FCC wanted to reclassify, but never heard that they actually did. The internet was classified as an information service (or something like that), but the FCC wanted to reclassify it as an information and telecommunications service, which the FCC has more control over. As far as I can remember, the FCC still has no control over pricing or anything like that. Only replied to the OP. Probably should have read the rest of the thread. lol, sorry. I'll fix my post. Thanks for mentioning that.

It has its problems, but it's a good game! I mean, they kind of killed crash mode, and the races really needed to be linear, but at least they got rid of traffic checking, right?! And the open world wasn't really a bad thing, was it? At least they patched in a restart last event button. Burnout 3 was my favorite, but somehow I ended up putting way more time into Paradise...

(I'll use Comcast as the example.) What people need to remember is that this isn't necessarily the big bad corporation trying to squeeze every penny out of the consumer, as is often implied. Comcast began regulating bittorrent a while back before the FCC clamped down because of the excessive amounts of bandwidth its users take up. ISPs need to provide the best service they can within the limitations of their networks, and when you have a disproportionally large amount of the network being used by a minority, it's a legitimate concern. If I'm providing service to three people, but one person uses up two peoples' worth of bandwidth, then that's a problem for the other two people, which, in turn, becomes my problem because they're paying me to be their provider. This is even more of a problem for wireless networks, which are far more limited. Whether or not ISPs actually begin with tiered data services is yet to be seen, but other than a ridiculously high 250gb monthly cap Comcast has instituted, I don't know of any signs of ISPs moving in that direction. (For context, the average household uses ~3gb per month. At more than 15gb, I could download Dragon Age: Origins 16 times without hitting the cap.) Obviously a cap isn't good for net neutrality, but in the interest of properly managing a massive network, it is a valid response. I'm all for net neutrality, but I also recognize that it's essentially the enemy of bandwidth. Comcast has (as far as I know) primarily approached net neutrality thusly; as a technological problem, not a business one. Until their actions indicate otherwise, I see no reason to assume we'll be stuck in a capitalized corporate hell. Not yet, anyway. ___ On the other hand, this is only the observations of an onlooker. I have no idea what top minds at Comcast or any other ISP are thinking. Just keep in mind that a company as large as Comcast would never want to risk alienating it's consumer base.

That's what I've been told. I just wonder if I'm really going to end up assassinating the Pope. For a game that seems to pride itself on history, I can't imagine it would stray so far from it as to allow me to assassinate the Pope. On another note, is anyone else actually interested in the sci-fi bit of it? I mean, as inevitable as it is, I loath the idea of a game set primarily around Desmond. What I love, however, is the Matrix-esque sci-fi backdrop for the games. I think the real reason I'm iffy on the idea of Desmond's game isn't because it won't have an awesome historical setting (here's to hoping the French Revolution is after Brotherhood), but because it won't be a simulated memory. It'll just be plain old sci-fi. Do you have the DLC? The Battle of Forli is very meh, but Bonfire of the Vanities is my favorite part of the whole game. ....I guess I do? Your question prompted me to go look up how to buy the DLC, but I own the pc version, which apparently came packaged with the DLC. I finished the Battle of Forli thinking it was a change of pace, albeit part of the normal story. Last I played, I had just entered Florence and met up with Machiavelli in what I assume is Bonfire of the Vanities. lol, now I know why it said "Repaired Memory" on the map instead of whatever it normally does.

This, along with Star Wars Republic Commando, The Path, the Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom, FEAR, Freedom Force vs. the Third Reich, and Deathspank. Fuckin' Steam sales events. I see we'll be off to a bad start then.

I have Brotherhood set aside because I'm in the process of playing AC2 first. When I got to Venice, I figured the game would end sometime shortly after Forli, but now that I'm there, I have the feeling I'm only half way done.

Rage. Most of my friends are pretty excited for it. I just see another post-apocalyptic playground. It's not that I think it'll be bad. I just don't care. Same with Black ops.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this lol...

No, but I am fairly manly.