SpartyOn

@CH3BURASHKA said:

@bartok said:

I wish more people had the balls to write reviews like that Halo 4 one.

There needs to be a clear and definite division between what qualifies as a "review" and what qualifies as an op-ed piece. While I enjoy and appreciate interesting, off-the-wall opinions, the purpose of a review is very tangential and measurable - whether or not to invest money in a product. People like Chick and Sterling are entertaining to read, whether because you agree with them or they ruffle your feathers, but they do a greater disservice than a, well, service to the review "industry". In the days of Metacritic, a 4 for Assassin's Creed 2 makes much less sense when every single other fucking outlet gives it a 9 or 10, not because they have the wool pulled over their eyes but because it's a quality product. I don't give a shit if some internet asshole wasn't completely satisfied with what they imagined they were getting into.

It doesn't take balls to write an inflammatory "review" and rile up gamers. It takes balls to put your ego in its fucking place and do your fucking job. The GB crew have more "balls" than Chick or Sterling can ever hope to have.

Correct. The entire point of a review is to allow a consumer to make an educated judgement of whether or not they will enjoy a particular game, and this article here made me doubt if Patrick gets that....particularly this line: "What do you want from your reviews? Do you want someone to reaffirm your preconceived notions about a game, or do you want to be challenged, and look at a game in a new light?"

I don't like the fact that a journalist defines reviews this way, because it isn't at all what I want from them. Patrick seems to get a hard-on for this type of journalism, which is fine, but it IS NOT what reviews are meant for. Hate to say it, but Patrick doesn't really have much credibility from me as far as objective analysis goes...I don't think he's capable of it. I tried reaching out to Patrick through a PM to see how exactly he defines a review, and what he believes their purpose to be, but as of yet I haven't received a response.

No because you're talking about hate and jealousy as if they're identical...which they aren't. Resentment of the wealthy is due to jealousy, or the fact that people wish they had what the wealthy have. Hate towards a race or gender is just a bigotry that is completely unwarranted and outdated in modern society.

Whatever, as long as it's against federal law, the states wont have the guts to allow anything too drastic. The feds could up and roll in on a state if anything went bad and arrest anyone enjoying in their new "right". Probably wouldn't happen because of financial concerns, but still the point stands: Until the federal government approves it, stories like these are just a fraction of 50 steps that need to be taken.

@tunaburn said:

I was wondering if anyone on here has this. Somedays im perfectly fine. Other days its hard to want to do anything. Ive even started crying for what seems to be no reason. "yea yea im a pussy"

I mean my life isnt any worse now then anyone elses. I got a job and a house and what not. It just seems to be really hard to be happy for some reason. I go through my life acting like its all good and noone is the wiser so its not affecting anything like that.

I dont want medicine. Hell i dont even know if this is just normal and noone talks about it.

You guys ever get like this?

Yes I have, and was diagnosed. My sophomore year of college I started feeling/thinking differently and thought the same way you did: that I was being a baby and that it was best to pretend I was fine. Finally I got some help, and the improvements I made led me to change my major to Psychology. The mind makes us who we are, and the effects it can have on us is tremendous. You wouldn't call somebody with cancer a baby for saying they didn't feel well, and psychological conditions are no different...they are very very real. My advice would be to start by talking to friends or family you feel comfortable with, and then go from there. Hell, I'd even be willing to talk to you right here on this very site if you'd like to hear what it was like for me. I wish you the best of luck.

@mystakin said:

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin: Correct, as I said originally. The disagreement was on the statement that women have very little power in society. Take a look at societies and cultures around the world where women are considered to be property. Not only that, but it's crazy to say that gender equality can be measured by the % CEO's and members of Congress that are women. Those professions have long been dominated by men, largely because of scientifically observable personality traits common to men that correlate with success in such professions. You can easily find high-paying jobs dominated by women and quote those statistics too. I hate it when people interpret equality the way you are, which is to be completely equal in every respect...that's ridiculous. There are differences in gender and it's insane to ignore them. Men are better suited for some professions, and women others. The important thing, is that we allow for the exceptions to have the opportunities to succeed, even in roles dominated by the opposite gender. Your argument is completely invalid to me...a more appropriate argument would be the difference in pay rates between men and women...something directly comparable between genders, and not biased towards proving a particular point.

Corporate and political power are the two strongest forces in America. Anything that isn't run by the government is typically run by business and the free market. Both keys to power in America are held by men, which is why I said women hold little power in American society. I don't think women are equal in every aspect; I think they're equal in their ability to be CEOs and political figures. There's a reason I didn't mention athletics, which is a career that may in-fact be genetically more suitable for men -- though I haven't looked into it.

One more reply and then I'm going to have to be done with this conversation. If you're standard of gender equality is that we are only equal when women hold 51% of all political and corporate jobs, then your logic is seriously flawed. I read an article just the other day that stated women held more CEO positions in Fortune 500 companies than ever in history, and I think that is wonderful. However, I would rather the best people for the job, get the job. If that means 99% are men or women, so be it. This notion of everything being split down the middle or we're sexist is insane, and it only serves to propagate sexism in society. You're focusing on the wrong things, and you have the wrong goals, although your reasons are just. Regardless, fun debating with you, but I'm just repeating myself now so I will have to excuse myself from this conversation.

@Downloaded: Agreed completely. Well said.

@mystakin: Correct, as I said originally. The disagreement was on the statement that women have very little power in society. Take a look at societies and cultures around the world where women are considered to be property. Not only that, but it's crazy to say that gender equality can be measured by the % CEO's and members of Congress that are women. Those professions have long been dominated by men, largely because of scientifically observable personality traits common to men that correlate with success in such professions. You can easily find high-paying jobs dominated by women and quote those statistics too. I hate it when people interpret equality the way you are, which is to be completely equal in every respect...that's ridiculous. There are differences in gender and it's insane to ignore them. Men are better suited for some professions, and women others. The important thing, is that we allow for the exceptions to have the opportunities to succeed, even in roles dominated by the opposite gender. Your argument is completely invalid to me...a more appropriate argument would be the difference in pay rates between men and women...something directly comparable between genders, and not biased towards proving a particular point.

@mystakin said:

@SpartyOn said:

Also, having expectations of women is not sexist, it's just an expectation that each male is, hopefully, willing to change based on a woman's wants. Men expect women to be able to clean and cook, and women expect men to be able to fix things and take care of the things they don't want to do, so why is only one of those sexist?

It's not. They both are, but women have very little power in American society compared to men. At face value, both assumptions are sexist stereotypes. However, men are in the fortunate position of controlling most American industries and are better equipped to counteract male stereotypes while propagating female ones -- usually without intent to cause harm.

Neither statement is more sexist than the other; one is just more of a problem.

I agree there are differences, but the claim "women have very little power in American society compared to men" is ridiculous. Today women are CEOs, political candidates, Supreme Court Justices, athletes, and just about anything else you can imagine. Saying they have very little power is undermining the massive progress this country has made in gender equality.

@haggis: Amen brother.

@GS_Dan: Delaying a game costs money and is pretty detrimental to a product, especially when it is being released this late in the year. Only a few % of xbox and ps3 owners aren't connected to the internet too, so that's not a big deal since the bugs are nowhere near gamebreaking. Calling this a broken product even with the bugs is ridiculous. @haggis said it right, gamers today just like to complain. I'm sure you would have complained about a delay just as much as this. It shocks me how Ubisoft putting out a patch to make a game better pisses people off.

@GS_Dan said:

@SpartyOn said:

I don't get why people keep complaining about day one patches. They fix the problems by the time the game is out for everyone, AND hit the deadline that millions of dollars relies on them hitting. Microsoft has released figures of how many xbox owners are connected to the internet, and it's the vast majority...also who doesn't have internet nowadays c'mon.

@AssInAss said:

So that's confirmation that this game was rushed. I've been hearing a lot of glitches and technical problems from people who have the game.

Played it before release or after? Because if it's before, then yes, i'm sure they experienced the list of bugs you just read...this is why you don't play games before release. I don't think you can call a game rushed because of this...that seems excessive. There isn't a damn game that comes out today without a patch on day one.

A game shouldn't go gold if it needs a patch like this one.

So you'd rather them delay the game so they don't have to patch it on day 1? You can look at that list and complain, or be happy all those problems are fixed when everyone starts playing. That argument doesn't make any sense to me I'm sorry.

I don't get why people keep complaining about day one patches. They fix the problems by the time the game is out for everyone, AND hit the deadline that millions of dollars relies on them hitting. Microsoft has released figures of how many xbox owners are connected to the internet, and it's the vast majority...also who doesn't have internet nowadays c'mon.

@AssInAss said:

So that's confirmation that this game was rushed. I've been hearing a lot of glitches and technical problems from people who have the game.

Played it before release or after? Because if it's before, then yes, i'm sure they experienced the list of bugs you just read...this is why you don't play games before release. I don't think you can call a game rushed because of this...that seems excessive. There isn't a damn game that comes out today without a patch on day one.