Will1Lucky

As a Star Trek fan I'd probably say Star Wars...I mean christ the average Hyper Drive can go from one side of the Galaxy to the other in a matter of hours. While in Star Trek the average tech available to the Federation would take decades to equal the same feat.

The Death Star was just ridiculous in terms of firepower, the only thing that the Federation has that comes close is Genesis a terraforming device banned because it more or less can completely destroy a Planet full of life.

Truth be told we don't know too much about the Star Wars Universe in terms of tech, while Star Trek has numerous episodes and films we only have a few films and the Clone Wars series for Star Wars. And to make matters worse in a sense from Star Trek we see a wide variety of difference species, classes and the different tech they all have access to. Star Wars by comparison only focuses on the Empire/Republic and the Rebels. It doesn't really go in depth with the tech at its disposal.

Rick Berman was good initially...then you know he got bad.

As for JJ, wells its a continuation of a head of the franchise similar to what Berman was essentially. So JJ now holds that position more or less.

No Internet....useless to me.

As a Trekkie I loved the new film, as it stands they are making a second film due for May 2013. A new series is a problem as I understand it JJ has to approve virtually anything that goes on screen so it needs his approval to get on TV. And from what I understand there have been several pitches since 2009 but evidently non have been successful.

@JoeyRavn: Probably she was originally contracted to do three games for the series and it didn't work out trying to extend that when Brotherhood and Revelations came into the picture. Both were originally planned to be included into AC2 if the announcements and pre-production were anything to go by. For example, originally it was stated AC2 would take place from 1476-1503 so Ezio from 17 until the end of his adventures in Rome more or less. And some of the Constantinople artwork from Revelations was actually released alongside the AC2 stuff going off the artbook I got with it so Constantinople was actually planned from the start of AC2 if the artwork was anything to go by.

To put it simply, they probably had AC1, AC2 (With Constantinople DLC) and AC3 planned and Kirsten would do all of it but the decision to split up AC2 which was smart considering how fractured that could have been all things considered meant the 3 games changed to 5 and as such her contract would have needed renewing which might have been very expensive or as you said impossible due to bad blood.

Disney make their own games you know, I don't think Disney will be handing those rights over anytime soon.

@Joeybagad0nutz said:

@K9: I feel like Connor was the one who was blinded by revenge than Ezio. At the beginning, yes, Ezio was blinded by rage. But, by the end of the game, he grew outta his phase with revenge and didn't even kill the man who held responsibility for every bad thing that had happen to Ezio. But, Connor through the entire game, that was his only focus. It was Charles Lee. He had to be held back a couple of times by other characters before he fucked shit up. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing Connor revenge story. I'm happy he got his revenge. That was an awesome scene. I'm more upset by the fact that, that was his only motivation. He rarely branch off in the story and show other aspects of his personality (and yes I did play the homestead missions).

Excuse me while I collect my jaw off the floor.....my god thats insane.

Biggest disappointment of the year for me, right up there with Mass Effect 3. That ending is right up there with Mass Effect 3, at least they didn't stretch it out over 15 minutes. Controls a mess, bugs a mess, mission design a mess, They took one massive step back from the previous installments with this one.

And as for Connor, absolutely bored me. Christ...I waited 3 years for this and I've never been so disappointed in a game.

@FengShuiGod said:

@SwaziSpring said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@SwaziSpring:

Larger in terms of pure numbers, or larger in terms of their populations?

Larger in terms of the total number of lower house representatives.

With the possible exceptions of India and China, all of those countries lower house representatives also represent a significantly lower number of people proportionally than in America.

So how does state/local government work in the UK? Is it as big as in the U.S.? Americans might not have the same proportion with regards to the feds, but if you factor in state houses and the amount of sovereignty and responsibility each state has then things look a little different.

Our local government is pretty pathetic actually, we don't have a constitution so ultimately Parliament is Soveriegn and can take away all power with a single law from the Local Councils...which is exactly what they did. At the moment we have 650MPs in the lower house each representing around about 75k constituents but it varies. The Upper House is more or less completely appointed so we don't vote for that.