HotChops

Okay, Japan, tsunamis, potential nuclear disasters. What a terrible mess. Even if most people had a chance to evacuate before the flood waters and debris waves hit, I look at the footage and pics and think, "That was someone's home. That was someone's car. That was someone's place of business." I'd be thankful to have my life, but to think of your entire community being swept away like that... that's really rough.

whew... wow. I love how people are throwing out shit like an episode of the Real World, lol. lol, that's more than 20 million people. I guess I can add a couple of things: When people say things like "IGN sucks, they reviewed Mario Kart for Wii at 9.1, but Splinter Cell Conviction at only 8.9!!!" Apparently they forget that there's different writers, different genres, different systems, vague undefined score systems, it's about the review's content and not the score anyway, etc. etc. I'm little bit annoyed with my friends who try to uphold this lame standard among us about ALWAYS playing a game on the hardest difficulty, and if possible, on the first playthrough. Stupid XBL tells the world when I'm playing a game on casual, and then I actually have to take shit for it. There are about a dozen reasons why I rarely play games on harder difficulty settings, two of them being that I'm a 28-year-old grad school student with little time for games these days anyhow.

I'm 99.9% sure your statistic is made up. That's something I've never seen proven. I did watch part of Ben Stein's excellent documentary on the bigotry against religious people in the scientific world so I'm sure a lot keep it to themselves. As proven with the whole global warming lie, it's very easy for so-called scientists to be sheep to political and personal whims. That's not a documentary. This is a documentary. And one that I desperately urge you to watch. Look, I'm sorry, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you think that Intelligent Design is science, then you don't know what science is. And again, I would remind you that I did not believe evolution for 23 years. There is not a bias or bigotry in scientific community against religion, it's just that the two ideas are fundamentally the opposite. One says, "This is the way things are BECAUSE WE SAY IT IS and don't ask questions." The other says, "Don't take our word for it. CHECK FOR YOURSELF. ASK QUESTIONS!" The idea that you're supposed to believe in evolution simply because your teacher told you to is a fallacy. You can go through the evidence and repeat the tests for yourself. The same cannot be said for ID. PS: progressive Christians may welcome you to ask questions and study science -- my mother certainly does. But they all too frequently do it wrong. They start from a conclusion, and then examine the evidence; trying to reconcile the evidence with the preconceived conclusion. True science operates in the other way. Evidence first, then conclusions. Then repeat and repeat and repeat. And not all scientists are total atheists. Some of the science teachers who took the Dover, Colorado School Board to court over the forced inclusion of ID were(are) active church-goers.

I mostly agree. She came to speak at my college a couple years ago, and my brother and I both attended -- but for different reasons. I was interested in her experiences and her feelings toward religion and the mistreatment of women; my brother -- a hardcore neocon -- liked her a as a proponent of aggressive foreign policy.

I've actually never seen that Heavy Rain demo. I'm so glad you posted it!

I believe you're referring to comedian and political provocateur, Bill Maher; a man I once idolized, but now I only respect. In the last couple of years, he's taken a far more antagonist approach towards openly-religious people (and pretty much anyone else who doesn't agree with him.) The common line that he usually gives is that Christians are "delusional," and then he frequently compares a belief in Jesus to schizophrenia. The justification being that a belief in a non-existent entity is no different than schizophrenic delusions. Ironically, Bill Maher was not always so unkind or rigid in his approach to the topic. He used to discuss religion and politics in a far more humorous and open manner. In fact, it was when I was still a Christian that he said something in his standup a few years ago that struck a very deep cord with me: "Of course there are questions that plague us: 'How did I get here? What happens when we die? Is there a Heaven? Am I on this list? ... but why would you believe some guy -- who's brain is no bigger or better than yours -- when he tells you that he knows what's going to happen to you when you die? ... I just don't understand why otherwise intelligent people could believe something so nonsensical, and spiritually unnecessary." At the time, he wasn't addressing the Jesus-messiah-myth specifically, but rather the other portions of the Bible (i.e. the story of Noah's Ark.) But at the time, that really fit with my own beliefs. Like many progressive Christians, I wasn't a very big fan of the Bible, but I remained a firm believer in the "core" concept, which was God+Jesus+Heaven. Everything else I considered man-made mythology. In retrospect, I think the belief that Jesus was humanity's savior was the last element to go because: 1. It's the core tenant of Christianity. In theory, God can forgive you not believing in something like the story of Isaac and Abraham, but once you denounce Jesus, that's it. You're in deep shit. 2. As a liberal guy, I really liked the idea of being a Christian. I liked (and still do) the ideas of loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, and foregoing riches and Earthly wealth. But in time, I let go of those parts too. I realized that the anthropomorphism of the Abrahamic God and the story of Jesus (virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection) were all just as nonsensical and man-made as every other concept in religion. This was reinforced when I learned that the main portions of the Jesus story have all been used before in other cultures and religions from hundreds of years earlier. (Jesus Myth Theory) More importantly, I realized that I didn't need the Bible or Christian-specific doctrines to be a compassionate and loving person. I can't defend Bill Maher or any other discourteous atheist in their approach to the topic other than to ask people to remember that Maher and other outspoken atheists have taken a lot of hatred from religious people -- including death threats -- and this was before he started accusing Christians of being "delusional." Myself on the other hand, because I was once a devout Christian, I feel like I understand how many religious people think. I understand that people are frequently objective in many aspects of their lives, but not so much when it comes to sacred cows. Religion is especially a touchy subject because many people started attending church before they attended grade school. Personally, Christianity was the foundation of my beliefs. When someone comes along and tells you that it's all just man-made superstition, it's devastating to even consider it. It means shattering the foundation of everything that you once believed. Take someone who is middle aged, they lost their family in a tragic car accident, and then turned to drinking for the pain. Then after a couple of years, a Christian re-birth helps them to quit drinking and deal with the loss of their family. If you tell them that Jesus was never the messiah and there is no God or afterlife, you're asking that person to do more than just change his mind. You're asking him to embrace a reality that is for many people simply too painful to bear. So I'm not necessarily an in-your-face or "militant" atheist, even though I was an active member of my college's atheist/agnostic club. I understand why most people are religious. As long as they're good people, I don't let it bother me. After all, my family -- despite (and because) of being religious -- is very loving and caring towards me. What kind of fool would I be to reject them simply because I don't believe it anymore? I would strongly recommend that people read (or listen to the audio version) of Christopher Hitchens' book, "God is not Great." Hitchens book is comprehensive, but also down-to-Earth. It's not snobby like Richard Dawkins work. Frankly, I don't see any reason why a religious person wouldn't read it. It'll either test and strengthen your convictions, or you'll change your mind about things. Either way you're a better person for reading it. Anywho... TL;DR, right? I could actually go on for pages about religion. So far, I've only really addressed religion and it's role in modern America. Religion and other parts of the world is a very different, and far more disturbing topic. If anyone's interested, read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and make sure not to miss her incredibly cringe-worthy story of her and sisters' genital mutilation.

Even though I didn't really have interest in Too Human, I thought it did do some things well. People are a little bit too harsh on it imo. I think there's a number of things that separate Too Human's development/delays and L.A. Noire's: -one was also accompanied by a lawsuit -one involved heavy hype accompanying a developer who had done good work in the past, whereas... -Team Bondi has yet to prove itself Oh and one more thing... Too Human looked like shit within only a couple of months before its release. I remember watching a video of it and thinking, "Christ, they didn't fix that? Shitttt." whereas L.A. Noire looks fucking awesome. However, we still haven't gotten a good look at the driving/shooting portions. But how bad could it be? Those have both been done well in other Rockstar games.

Well, that's a toss-up. Batman: Arkham Asylum was delayed, and look how that turned out. Granted, that was one delay, not many. Team Bondi (had) talent, but lacked refinement. Most rookie developers are like that, but then they get picked up by a larger publisher and they weed out the bad, improve the good, and boost the development budget considerably. But I don't think that's the main reason for the delay. I think the #1 reason it was delayed so many times was the groundbreaking technology used in it's production. They're traversing new territory in a generally-unused genre. It's not like an annual Call of Duty game where the basic technology and formula are already there. People have made their comparisons of LA Noire to Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption and Mafia II, but I really think that L.A. Noire will be something distinctly different from all previous games.

whew... uh, oh boy. I really don't have the time to get into this, but you guys have stirred me -- not in a way, but in a way that I'm compelled to respond. Sorry if I've offended anyone. I just wanted to let off some steam and defend my point of view in a rational manner. I appreciate that you both acknowledge that life can be hard, but I don't think that you guys fully grasp just how hard it is for a lot of creatures. I don't believe that anyone is "destined" for anything, because I don't believe in destiny. But I do believe that some creatures are born into an existence that is so miserable and/or brief that it would have been better if they had never existed at all. Normally, I would cite dozens of examples from children with terminal illnesses, to the WWII Holocaust, to the lives of insects/animals that are snuffed out in the most callous of ways. But I'm short on time right now, and I'll have to go into that more later. Likewise, it's not just creatures that cause misery, it's the universe itself. Nature, the cosmos -- whatever you want to call it -- is chaotic, random, and at times, terribly cruel. And I understand that you're trying to be positive and uplifting with your words, and to many people, they may find it uplifting, but I personally find some it to be presumptuous and condescending. Again, I will go into that more when I finish my last two days of classwork. And this one is important: I am an atheist. Atheism only describes one aspect of my views -- a lack of belief in the supernatural or superstition. It does not describe my spiritual views (or lack thereof), nor does it describe my sense of ethics and morality. Far too often, people speak of atheism as if it is a religion or personality cult, and the reality is just the opposite. In response specifically to Battra, I am not a person who goes nuts over more trivial things like the phrase "God bless you," but I do have issues with something like the phrase "under God" within the American Pledge of Allegiance -- I'm not protesting every day, but it's enough of an issue that it's worth noting and voting accordingly. More importantly, I am not someone who was molested by priests, or victimized (significantly) by religion on behalf of my parents. I grew up Methodist, and proudly so, for more than 20 years. I was active in churches, religious summer camps, and my college church organization. Up until the age of 23 I believed in the God of Abraham, and that his son -- Jesus -- was the messiah. However, for the last five years I have been a firm atheist/secular humanist. These views are not based on anger or resentment. My views are rooted in a fundamental understanding of science and logic, and supported by theological and philosophical contradictions that I struggled with from a young age. My mother is a progressive Methodist minister, but she did not become so until I was 18 and living on my own. The rest of my family and the predominant majority of my local population (North Texas) is religious and we get along pretty well despite our differences. Again and again, I'm really short on time. So I'll just summarize my core stance and then come back to support it more later: Religion and spirituality have helped and harmed humanity for the last 10,000 years. It has been a source of comfort, morality, and structure in an otherwise dark and chaotic world. It also has been the the root and result of massive ignorance; a justification for inhumane laws, and terribly violent actions; and most recently, a major hindrance to the societal evolution of humanity. In an age before science, religion arguably provided more than it stifled and stole, but in the modern age when we have the power to understand why people get sick, how our planet formed, our relation to other creatures, and vulnerability of our species, human beings need to learn to embrace the power of objectivity over superstition. Because after all, that's what religion is. It's mass superstition. Believing that you have to worship a particular deity in order to be granted access to an unproven afterlife is no different than believing that you have to avoid a black cat to prevent catastrophe. Sure there are many people who take comfort and strength in that superstition, and they are free to do so, but that freedom ends when the person believes that their superstition is FACT. There is an appropriate time and place for objectivity and spirituality. When humanity needs to figure out how to overcome the impending threats of WMDs, massive viral outbreaks, and global extinction events; to setting policies that dictate the right to health and happiness of other creatures; and find ways to cure terrible diseases and break the bonds of Earth's gravity -- WE NEED OBJECTIVITY. We need facts. We need science. When it comes to dealing with a terminal illness, or coping with the loss of a loved one, or examining existential questions about the absolute origin of the universe and all creation, that's when spirituality, superstition and philosophy are acceptable. Even then, limits are needed. For example, I don't fault my grandma for believing that my recently-deceased, 21-year-old cousin is in Heaven. She needs that to deal with her loss. However, I do fault some pissed off person who honor-kills his daughter so that the rest of his family can make it to Heaven. Unfortunately, as with politics, most people can't seem to rationally and calmly discuss these things. I believe that I can, and I get by everyday with thousands of religious people because the truth is that religion doesn't play as tangible a role in day-to-day life as people think it does -- not even here in the Bible Belt. My neighbors just assume I'm Christian because I'm always kind and compassionate towards them and their children. I obey the laws, mow my lawn and function just like every other good citizen. Likewise, I don't treat my neighbors harshly because of their religious beliefs because they rarely impact their way of life. For example, when their kids get sick, they don't just pray that the disease will disappear -- they take their kids to the doctor and get medicine. Despite their religious devotion, they are more secular and humble before the influence of science than they even realize. On the flipside, when my loved ones are dying, and I get scared, I also find myself yearning for the aid of divine being. I too, find myself hoping for a balancing force in the universe. So there's no need for people to get too riled up in this thread. We all share far more in common than we may initially realize. What matters is our actions and the results they produce. Pretty much everyone who comments in this thread does so for the same reasons -- to improve the lives of those who read it and make the world a better place. So please don't be too upset about what I have to say.

I really love that the graphics and facial animations are so strong in LA Noire that I can easily recognize the actors. It's not the first time it's been done (Dead Space, Assassin's Creed, The Force Unleashed,) but in those games, there's usually something "off" about the recreations of the characters. But this... this is different. I think this could really open the door to using Hollywood actors in games. Now all they need to do is make the body animations match the face animations and we're really moving forward. edit: I just hit up imdb for the cast list. I got more than I bargained for. It's a little surprising how many of them have played roles in Mad Men. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764429/fullcredits#cast

When I was a kid, I loved Mortal Kombat. As I grew older I loved the Grand Theft Auto games too. But after watching this video: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/x-rays-and-mortal-kombat/711458 I found myself disgusted; not disgusted like, "OMG that's terrible and that game should be banned!" but rather more like: Crunching, gushing sounds? Face eating? Eww. No thanks. Merely a year ago I was thinking about buying this game when it came out, but seeing it now... and especially hearing it... I'm really turned off. For years, "experts" have claimed that games desensitize people to violence and even make them crave it. I believe that I am living proof of the complete opposite. I seem less and less interested in violence these days. I still play GTAIV when I'm feeling really sinister and angry, and then I laugh when I drive on the sidewalk and mow down dozens of people. But when I set someone on fire in that game and watch them flail around until they're roasting on the ground, I feel a little queasy. It's a bit hard to explain, because the line between exciting action and gratuitous violence is pretty thin for me. I just can't help but notice that I'm less and less interested in games like Mortal Kombat and Bulletstorm (even from a guilty-pleasure, naughty-fun way). What about you guys?

Got another video available that shows a mix of everything. I have to say that I'm getting more and more excited about this game with every month. This video shows some of the RPG-aspects of the game such as assigning points to your detective skills. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gameplay-series-l-a-noire/711460

I've been uber-busy for the last six weeks, so I'm bummed that I've missed most of this thread; especially because I'm a big Mass Effect fan. What I'd add is that I don't believe Drew Karpyshyn and the other ME writers view the morality of the galaxy in such a black/white way -- it's the gameplay that causes that. For example, if you read the ME prequel book, the writer strongly implies that the council manipulated the human ambassador into enlisting Captain Anderson for a Spectre mission with Saren because they knew it would be a fiasco that they could use to justify keeping humans out of the Spectres and off the council. There are also examples in the Codec and the games where they say that the council never really liked the Batarians, so they purposely allowed conflict to break out between them and humanity. Likewise, the council always wanted to expand into the Traverse, but they didn't want to get their hands dirty. Again, they allowed (or rather sent) humanity to suffer the consequences of that action. It's only in the game that every anti-council choice is made out to be a bad thing. It would seem that in the writers' minds, choosing humanity over the council is a gray area.

It's almost cheating b/c it's all CG, but...

Even though the game disappointed me, I've always thought this trailer for Fry Cry 2 was very cool and stylish, especially around the halfway mark.

Normandy 3.0 looks like Cerberus tech. I really hope that Shepard doesn't work for Cerberus in ME3. I liked being a part of the Alliance military.

I was just about to post this. It's pretty, but that whole segment was waaayyy too much like Call of Duty's single player for my taste. You know, at this point I'm really just concerned with the console multiplayer. It seems like the entire idea is a little backwards: bigger maps, but less players? I would rather them just do what they have to do to get it up to 32 players, even if it means making the maps no larger than BC2 and removing the jets (blasphemy, I know.)

I don't think the Wii's intended audience and what HotChops is talking about are the same thing. No, I don't think that they are the same thing. I think that the boundary may get a little blurred at times, but I disagree with Cyber Rat. For example, take my older brother. The last system he owned was an original Xbox that I gave him. Prior to that, he was a regular gamer for nearly 20 years. Today he's a very busy husband and father. He's between casual gamer and non-gamer. But you better believe he knows the difference between Black Ops and the original Call of Duty. He knows the difference between Heavy Rain and Epic Mickey. For him, the biggest barriers in gaming are time and skill. He shares my interest in games like Assassin's Creed, RDR and Medal of Honor, but he doesn't have the time or patience to work through them. He would be an ideal consumer for the kind of motion-controlled game that I'm talking about. His wife a non-gamer, but she knows the difference between Mario Kart and Gran Turismo. If there was a game that catered to her tastes-- strong female protagonist, minimal violence, some romance and comedy -- with motion controls and strong audio/visual elements, I think she'd be interested in playing it. EDIT: Nice post, WTF. I'm wondering how young most developers actually are though. I think the creative directors are generally older, but the coders are probably younger.

I don't think I said that or implied it. I'm saying that we should leave behind the term "video game" in part because "games" are a lot more than just points and bosses now. When the term "video game" continues to be tossed around, it perpetuates that expectation. It's not like traditional games are going away. Like movies, the best selling interactive experiences are going to involve action and violence instead of emotion and drama. I'd simply like to see the term and the ideas associated with games to change, along with more funding for games that do things other than shoot and platform. I think my idea about a motion-controlled LA Noire would really open up a new market for people who are looking for games with lower skill thresholds, but who also want the better graphics and sound and deep stories of titles like Mass Effect or RDR.

Heavy Rain has made me question the definition of the term "video game" and the concept of interactive entertainment as a whole. I think it's definitely time to leave the term "video game" behind and start moving towards "interactive entertainment" because to be quite frank, I'm not very interested in "games" anymore. I don't care very much about combat, points, missions, fetch quests or achievements. I'd actually enjoy a game like Read Dead Redemption more if it was predominately ranch-based challenges, or Mass Effect if the purpose of the game was to be an intergalactic diplomat or an engineer aboard various star ships. On a related note, I think we need to address a major component of the problem, which is this viscious cycle that the game industry seems to be stuck in: Non-gamers don't buy consoles because most of the games are mindless violence. Lacking a significant market, publishers stick to making mindlessly violent games. Thus, non-gamers have their apathy towards gaming reinforced by the abundance of violent games. More and more we are seeing titles that cater to casual or non-gamers, but they're all mobile games, Facebook games, or motion-controlled games. Who's to say that they wouldn't appreciate better graphics and sound? Let's look at LA Noire for example. More and more I've been thinking that the person who would really love that game is my dad. Instead of including complex driving or shooting mechanics, what if they super-simplified those portions, then packaged them with the detective stuff and then offer it for Kinect or Move? My dad doesn't go anywhere near games, but I could see him sitting in his living room and playing LA Noire start-to-finish with simple hand/arm gestures. That would be a perfect addition to the motion-controlled lineup, but instead all we're getting is lameass Wii Sports clones.