randyf

I just hate the term "gamer." The argument about "chesser" or "boarder" or whatever that was brought up is perfect. It can be applied to anything. Are people who are way into movies called Moviers? Filmers? No, because it's stupid. We are people who enjoy playing video games. Lumping us into the category "gamers" makes us kind of sound like hippies. I am a person that plays way more video games than the average person and knows way more about video games than the average person (most of us here, if not all of us, do) and I would never call myself a gamer. Not because I don't think I "deserve" the title, but because I think it sounds stupid.

I think that girl was just trying to be nice by trying to relate to your hobby. Then again, I hate getting my haircut because for some reason the small talk with the stylist just irritates me. Plus, I'm lazy. I'm getting off topic now.

I, myself, have played a fair amount of Call of Duty. It's not my favorite game and not even my favorite shooter, but I enjoy it. And I can tell you that I am none of those things you listed about people who play it (except that I don't think Axe Body Spray smells all that bad). But I can understand your frustration. The ignorance about our hobby can bother me sometimes, but I try not to let it get to me too often.

The part where Dr. Ray says that a lot of the negative feedback was due to player's expectations really pisses me off.

"Oh, you don't like the same four environments over and over again, enemies who literally appear out of thin air to make the game longer, and a storyline that consists mainly of 'Hawke: The Errand Boy?' What did you expect!? We tried something different! Do you want us to make the SAME GAME!?"

Poor decisions that are different than the first doesn't automatically mean that it's better because it's different. If you want to change it up, improve on what you have and put in some new, good ideas. Not that I despise Dragon Age 2, but don't blame the consumer for the lackluster response.

@TaliciaDragonsong: I agree with you for the most part. I was just saying that, at this point, so few MMOs are coming out today that an MMO fan, such as myself, doesn't really get to be choosy. If people are sick of WOW, there's really not that many alternatives out there. In the case with me, you could be so desperate for an MMO that's different that you wouldn't care what setting it was in, you're just super bored of WOW. I can see someone who enjoys fantasy more than sci-fi still play Star Wars because they think what that game does is better than Guild Wars. Since those are really the only two games coming out in the foreseeable future, if you don't like one of them, you might play the other one anyway even if you don't like the setting because you're so hungry for a new MMO experience. I, for one, prefer sci-fi much more than high fantasy, but am still looking forward to Guild Wars 2 because it just seems like the more interesting game.

But I agree that if one setting just kicks in your gag reflex that you might just ignore both and wait for something else to come down the line. I'm just saying that they're not two completely different audiences and that we can compare them. It was mainly to defend the original poster for making this topic. I don't think it's pointless. It just sparks a discussion.

I don't see any harm in comparing the two. It's a question of what you're most excited for. I also disagree that they're targeting different audiences. They are MMOs that are persistent worlds, heavily story focused, and will require a heavy time commitment. With so little meaningful MMOs coming out lately, I can definitely see these two competing. I mean, Tabula Rasa, Champions Online, Star Trek Online - they all had different settings but were still crushed under the behemoth that is World of Warcraft, which is traditional high fantasy. They're not targeting "sci-fi" or "fantasy" crowds, they're targeting "MMO" crowds.

That said, definitely looking forward to Guild Wars 2 more. It seems like Guild Wars 2 is looking at the current MMO scene and is trying to change it. For the most part, MMOs have been pretty much the same thing since WOW (which really was just kind of a refined Everquest anyway). No one has really come in and shook up the formula, and that's what it seems like ArenaNet is aiming to do. The Old Republic, to me, looks like WOW with lightsabers. And while that's fine, I'm just bored of it. Also, no subscription fee doesn't hurt.

There was no reason for that review to be taken down. The developer was out of line. However, that review was painfully, offensively unfunny with (from what I can gather from most people's comments) completely inaccurate claims about the game. It is possible to be satirical and have your facts straight at the same time.

So, ultimately, I think the video should be left alone, even if it was cringe-worthy.

EDIT: I should mention that I've never played Terraria or Minecraft and have no affection toward either one.

I understand the need for publishers to have an online pass for their games, but I, personally, think it sucks. There's nothing wrong with buying a used game, and I think it's crappy to lock content away for those people who do decide to buy it used. Not everyone can afford a new game on launch day, and it's a real shame that publishers have to resort to these kinds of things. I firmly believe that the consumer has a right to choose how and where to buy things. Not to mention that Mr. Joe Gamer who talks into a Gamestop and picks up a copy of Madden used because it's cheaper won't know about the online passes, and he'll be screwed when he gets home. It's not something they show on the box (at least not with the games I've bought recently, including Mortal Kombat).

I just believe it's silly that I can go and buy an old, used book or movie and get the same content out of those items as I did on launch day (except maybe the digital downloads for movies that's been happening recently) but game publishers somehow think they're better and require this crazy scheme to get people who do buy cheaper games to fork out more money anyway.

This is coming from someone who always buys their games new. I'm just not really sure I agree with this whole online pass thing, but I do understand why they do it.

For me, it's more that Mortal Kombat is a four (primary) button game and the controller has four face buttons. It's always been tough for me to play Street Fighter on a controller when the heavy attacks are on the shoulder buttons. It's always been awkward for me, so I always play that game with a stick. But Mortal Kombat doesn't need it and I think it might be easier to pull off the directions easier on a d-pad because it's faster to move your thumb back and forth (such as back, forward, punch) than it is to move a stick back and forth.  But, ultimately, it just comes down to personal preference. I'm sure I'm wrong in some way, but it's just the way I like to play it.

As someone who just upgraded to a paid subscription a few days ago, I can honestly say that watching TNT on Justin.tv is completely fine. I have yet to watch a TNT live (as it's either late on the east coast or I'm busy) and I always go to Justin.tv to watch it. So for the people who aren't subscribed, don't worry too much. Although I suppose to does suck for those who are outside of the US and can't do that. Just try and catch it live, I guess.
 
In addition, I like to watch parts of it and leave it paused for a while and come back to it later. If I did that on the Whiskey Media player, it would reset the time back to 0 and I would have to find where I left off. Justin.tv doesn't do that.
 
Just thought I'd give people some insight on someone who hasn't been a subscriber for very long (only a few days). The link to the Giant Bomb Justin is here:
 
http://www.justin.tv/giantbomb
 
Just look to see when it was posted to figure out which TNT it is.

I think it's more along the lines of it being confusing. Most people consider the first game "Dragon Age." If you have another "Dragon Age," people that go into a store to buy it might get confused. Putting a fat 2 on it separates the games from each other enough to where it shouldn't be a problem.

This is my first post, but I wanted to say something. If you insist on getting a tattoo, get it where you can hide it if necessary (like the bicep or shoulder). Potential employers may frown upon tattoos, especially if they're readily noticeable. It's also good to have them be hidden for occasions like weddings, funerals, and other things. Just my personal opinion, though.