FriskyHeadCrab

No for a multitude of reasons:

1. Fluid character movement would require very processor intense calculations on the server side. Multiply this by a reasonable number of users on a server and Phhhbbbttttt. Way too expensive to service. The movement would have to be WAY dumbed down to scale properly.
2. The combat is a similar story. A lot of the movement, combat included, is procedural, which is to say calculated. This would ALSO have to be on the server end, which should definitely not scale well. Everything would have to be canned animations, so it would look much worse.
3. The weapons would prove ultimately uninteresting. Assassin's Creed's combat is satisfying in its simplicity. Adding weapons would only serve to add or subtract arbitrary damage from your standard attacks.
4. Given the standard formula for MMO gameplay, I don't see the mission structure being particularly rewarding or varied.

Multiplayer Assassin's Creed works as it is now. Adding MMO limitations into the system in order to raise the player count doesn't really make a lot of sense. I get why you want it, but for the love of all that is holy I hope it never comes to pass.

@video_game_king: <---- winner.

Nexus 7 or 10 would be your best bet. If you're going android, there's no need to buy anything else and then HOPE that cyanogen will continue to support it. Just stick with the first party deal. The specs are really impressive on both of them, and Google is really good about continuing to support them with updates.

Well, just be secure in the knowledge that while you have to pay more for your xbox, your healthcare is better/cheaper/more widely available, and your internet way faster and cheaper.

$150 off an xbox? Totally worth getting screwed by verizon and phizer. Go Team America.

Uh, i don't know about you guys, but I would totally love if they just minimized the comment section below the videos by default. Either that, or have some much more potent moderating system to weed out the uninspired trolling/raging/internet-toughguy-ing that populates those threads. Comment sections are the septic tanks of he internet. By and large, the only reason anyone posts in a comment section is to take a dump on whatever piece of content happens to be connected to it or hurl that defecation at the fans or creators of that content.

To suggest that the giant bomb crew, or ANY other website even attempt to respond in an intelligent way to the collective beast-rage of the bored, self righteous, pre-pubescent commenting population is silly.

This is silly pants. Comments sections are silly pants. And you are all silly pants for thinking of them as a valid method of talking to the creators and curators of this site.

And yes. I do realize the irony of posting this. Hypocrisy confirmed.

@Kidavenger said:

The Neverhood probably, I doubt it sold very well when it came out.

I also have Star Control for the Genesis, Sengoku for the Neo Geo and Military Madness for the TG16 which were probably all very low sellers when they came out.

I see your copy of the Neverhood, and raise you a PSX copy of Skullmonkeys. I friggin love this game.

@s10129107: during which time the entertainment landscape will have shifted drastically, making the findings of the long term study mostly irrelevant to the time period it ends in.

And, totally nitpicking here, it would be a positive correlation if the study found it did effect violence.

@MikeGosot: It's important to note that the right to free speech is limited. Speech that incites violence is NOT protected, and CAN be prosecuted. Plus, the free speech thing only applies to government prosecution. Arbiters of conversation are free to limit or censor whatever kinds of speech they want in their medium. Youtube can take down whatever they please, Facebook can ban hate speech, and the ESRB (which is not a government organization) can impose whatever industry standards they want.

@wewantsthering said:

Because this is about the eighth time they've wasted tax payers money to research this and every time they don't find a connection. They really want their to be a connection so they can have something to blame.

The anti-tax rhetoric in this conversation is sorely misplaced.

The money that would be allocated to this study has already been accounted for in the budget. It's what the CDC DOES. It researches potential health risks. You're not paying a dime extra for this service than you are already paying (or likely not, considering how few people are in a tax bracket that even pays for such federal programs) Even if it were extra, we're talking about: ~100 million tax returns (so, the 43% of singles and couples who make enough money to actually pay federal taxes) / $10 million for the study.

This costs actual federal tax payers ten cents a year.

@Oldirtybearon: Insanity?

Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is?