Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by A CLAN OF ONE

  1. FYI, the definition of CENSOR is: Is this gonna be the type of forum where people lob "softballs" at each other and sit around the campfire singing "Cumbayah, My Lord" and agree to NEVER disagree? Me either, merlot. That's why I'm bugging out. I presented a point, you made a counter-point and I rebutted. I didn't think it was a big deal. Allow me to clarify. By "places like that", I don't mean videogame sites, I mean videogame sites with asshats and fanboys galore. I come to this forum to discuss ALL KINDS OF THINGS, IN A CIVILIZED MANNER, without everything erupting into a "flame war." Bottom line: this is your website and you set the rules. But I decide if I'm gonna play by them. As it stands now, if you're gonna have "taboo" topics, revoke my membership. Just please give me advanced warning, so that I can post my goodbye's (since I don't have a way of contacting a lot of people in this forum.) Thank you.
  2. Then maybe you guys should change to something more politically correct. :roll: We have a diverse group here, a lot of people whose opinion's I respect whether or not I agree with them, and I like to see where they stand on certain matters. So, in essence, there AREN'T better places to discuss politics, since most of the folk here are good, intelligent, opinionated mofo's. So, since this is a "videogaming forum", what's next? No discussion of anything not directly related to a videogame? So that means no more talk of music (unless it's in a game), no more talk of cars (unless they're in a game), no more movie talk (unless it's based on a game or they're making a movie out of it), etc. The idea of banning certain discussions reeks of censorship and IMHO is ridiculous, but you guys are the owners and that is your prerogative. But if that's your "official" stance, you can revoke my membership as of right now. There are plenty of other places "just to talk games" (mostly with asshats), I came here to get away from places like that.
  3. Right now, my baby is the L85. It's got good accuracy, good stopping power, low recoil and 30 rounds. But really, mostly ALL of the A.R.'s are WAY decent. When I need to get serious, I'll use the M16 or G3A3. The Famas' rate of fire is sick. The AK-47 is, IMHO, one of the best guns in the game. The G36C is very similar in characteristics to the L85, which is good. About the only guns I don't like are the TAR-21 (the zoomed-in sight takes up WAY too much space on-screen) and the Galil (good fire-power with 100 round drums :shock:, but the aiming reticle is WAY too small). The SMG's (MP5's, TMP, UMP, MAC 11, etc.) are garbage. You could use 'em in co-op mode, but you'll get your ass handed to you in multi-player. The M1 shottie is USELESS (I'd rather use an SMG) but the USAS-12 auto-shottie is a lot of fun with MONSTER power and VERY good recoil. It's quite fun to get kills with the USAS. :twisted: Except for the Desert Eagle, the pistols are TOYS.
  4. That also describes me to a T, Angel.For me, the biggest video-gaming timesink is XBL. I just find it WAY more challenging and fun, to go against people instead of A.I., the exception being Halo. It's so bad, that the only "off-line" games I've played (or bought) since last year was Zelda:WW and Half-Life on PC. BTW, after a months-long hiatus, I'm playing Half-Life again. I NEED to finish that game in preparation for HL 2. I don't finish most games 'cause they knid of "peter" out. It's rare, nowadays, that a game's so compelling that I want to see it to it's conclusion. The only 2 games, on the horizon, I'm gonna finish are HL (before HL2's release) and Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga ('cause it's a GREAT game).
  5. Since is obviously gonna win, how about we don't participate in the tourney and let you girls fight for second place? :twisted: Just a thought. FYI, you KNOW the teams really were random if Joey didn't end up on this one. Or maybe he's just making it look good... :shock:
  6. OK, here's the deal: At present, I have a 60 GB HD in my PC with 31% free space, which I'm filling up fast. I don't know ANYTHING about partitions AND since my PC was built for me, I know even less about the partitions in my PC. So anyway, I have a WD 120GB HD laying around, which I was going to use for an HTPC, but I'll probably get a 200GB for that purpose, so I wanna put the 120 gig in my PC. Basically, what I want to do is have my OS and apps on the 60 gig (I have in my PC now) and use the 120 gig for data (mostly videos and music). BUT, here's where I think it gets tricky, I want to partition my 60 gig. Can I do that with stuff on my 60 gig HD? Or would I have to copy evrything over to the 120, re-format (?) and partiton the 60, then copy the OS and apps back onto the 60? Then "erase" all the stuff I don't want on the 120? Is this possible? If so, what kind of program do I need? BTW, free is GOOD! Also, how many and what size should partitions be for an "average" user like myself? BTW, if it's important, I DO NOT have my Windows XP disc. Is there a way to do a clean install without it, if it's necessary?
  7. OK ladies, sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but I'm in this tourney for shizzle. So get all those lofty notions of victory outta your head. Unless, of course, you happen to be on my team (BTW, I'm sure something can be "arranged" with Joey ).
  8. There's rumors flying around that Action Replay is the reason Bungie isn't releasing Halo 2 yet. It sounds a lil' crazy, 'til you start thinking about it. Cheating/hacking killed Wolfenstein and it's in the process of ruining Rainbow 6 3. I wouldn't blame Bungie if they're worried about asshats ruining Halo 2. I played with a guy last week that was getting head-shots ALL THE TIME. When asked about it, he said "I'm just good with head-shots." :? Right away, I'm thinking this guy's cheating. But what if he really was that good? We'll never know... Just another way all this cheating is ruining this game. Now, everytime someone gets owned, there's always a question. Unless of course, you're playing with friends. :twisted: Maybe somebody could help me out but, is it THAT hard to design a fly to go in the cheater's ointment? A monkey-wrench in Action Replay's works? Something NEEDS to be done.
  9. Please, dumb it down for me because I'm having a hard time separating the Xbox from the other H & E stuff. It would seem they ARE losing money on the 'box, so I stand corrected, but how much per console sold? Again: See all those "and"s. They're lumping everything together. I understand: "growth in operating expenses related to increased product costs associated with higher consoles sold", but how much BY ITSELF? Maybe the answer is here (or is it ): Another one of those pesky "and"s. Is the Xbox responsible for the other 16% "increase in Home & Entertainment costs"?
  10. FYI, I e-mailed the author of that article, a Mr. Chris Morris, about the "MS is losing money on every Xbox sold" thing. Basically, I asked him if he had a reliable, verifiable, quotable source for this info. Because, thus far, even though it's been mentioned countless times, I've yet to see A SINGLE PERSON prove that MS is (or was, for that matter) losing money on the Xbox. I hope he e-mails me back. :twisted: From Jay's link: Now, I don't care how you crunch those numbers, but there's NO WAY you can tell me (from that) how much an Xbox costs to make OR if MS is losing money on it. Exactly.
  11. Just wondering but, do YOU have any info to back that statement up?From the article: Reported by who(m)? Do YOU know, 'cause the author apparently doesn't.
  12. I voted "Yes, except for a handful of games." Those games being Half-Life and BF 1942. For me, it just comes down to ergonomics. Playing with a kb/mouse SUCKS big time. FYI, I recently got a Belkin nostromo n52 speedpad, which helps a LOT, but it's still not as intuitive as a console's controller, IMHO. I was built for console gaming. 8)
  13. Mine would be: 75% Xbox (most of that Live, of course ) 15% GBA SP (which I play a lot "on the go", but when I'm home I end up neglecting it sometimes :oops:) 9 1/2% PC (with online BF 1942 taking up most of that, with Half-Life a distant second) 1/2% GC aka The Dust Collector (haven't played this thing since Zelda: Wind Waker, which I got on release day :shock:) ...there you have it.
  14. I just recently read all three books. If you're a fan of Halo (and even if you're not) these books are a great read. Hell, these books might make you like the videogame, if you don't already. The bad part is that it makes you want Halo 2 THAT much more. My favorite was the first one, "The Fall of Reach." The book's basically about the origin of the Master Chief and how he came to be such a BAD ASS. BTW, he's a LOT more bad ass than the game led me to believe. Anyway, I read somewhere that there will NOT be a Halo 3. Apparently, Bungie wants to rap everything up in Halo 2. I just wanted to know where you think the story's gonna go. I think the only way the M.C. is gonna beat the Covenant is to hook up with 343 G.S., find some more "Flood" and deposit them on the Covenant homeworld. Even if it costs him his life. I also think some kind of "time travel" will be a part of the story. Anyone notice how everything on Halo is "familiar" to the M.C.? Or when 343 asked him: "Last time you asked me: if it were my choice, would I do it? Having had considerable time to ponder your query, my answer has not changed." FYI, 343 was in charge of Halo for "101,217 local years." Think I'm crazy? From the official Halo 2 FAQ:
  15. I thought they reset the stats last night, 'cause instead of hovering around 3000 (like it usually does ) my ELO was like 1200. I was like WHOA! But then I saw some kid with less time than me, more deaths than kills AND a higher ELO :shock: and knew everything was still screwed up.
  16. I try to be as clear as possible and I still get misunderstood. :x Here I'm being misqouted again. Rereading my post, I can see where someone could get that impression, but I NEVER said Links was "half a game." What I meant is that it's only a matter of time until they start selling half-complete (or half-finished) games and charging us for the rest. Only a matter of time. It's gonna happen, someone's gonna try it, whether it's successful or not though, is up to us.As for the second part of your statement, Joel, I find it a little condescending. Of course I knew "premium" DLC was coming. I also don't think foreknowledge of something makes it right. I don't like the idea of "premium" DLC and where, IMHO, it's going to lead us, whether I knew about it beforehand or not. BTW, I LIKE Links. Even though, honestly, I don't play it as much as I should. But my like or dislike of a game has NOTHING to do with my stance on DLC. I feel like some people think I'm bashing Links, which I'm certainly NOT here to do. I like that idea.
  17. Graeme brings up some VERY good points I hadn't even thought of yet. Anyway, I swore I wasn't gonna step foot in this thread again (especially after the lashing I got from Chris :cry:), but I can't help it. I feel I'm getting misrepresented, misconstrued AND misquoted. Here goes... What I meant by my statement is that I don't mind paying FULL PRICE for a COMPLETE game. I do mind paying full price for a game that "mysteriously" has a new course available (for a fee, of course :roll:) a little while after release. Maybe if I'd've paid $20-30 and then they started charging $5 a course, it'd be a little more acceptable, to me.Another thing. This is NOT PC gaming. Yes I know all about patches and expansion packs (bought both of the BF1942 ones, BTW ), but this is CONSOLE gaming. Barring SegaNET, which to me was a social experiment or a public BETA, if you will, XBL is the FIRST, REAL, SERIOUS attempt at MAINSTREAM, WORLDWIDE online console gaming. As early adopters, we're in unchartered territory and we're setting precedents. As far as the "business" side of things, I never said companies are "evil" for wanting to turn a profit. Obviously, any business that wants to STAY in business BETTER turn a profit. But I'm not worried because I THINK companies are EVIL, I'm worried 'cause I KNOW they're out to turn the biggest profit possible. If they can get away with charging $50 for half-a-game and charging $5-a-pop for the other half, they'd be fools NOT to do it. Even if that were true, which I don't think it is, is that bad? I think I'm being very practical in not supporting something I think is gonna lead us down a road I don't want to go down. I mean, as much as we all like joking and poking fun at the "Phantom" :lmfao:, if this "premium" DLC catches on like wildfire, companies are gonna see the $$$$$ and the "Phantom" is gonna be the future of gaming. Then the joke's gonna be on us.
  18. Exactly. Good, bad or ugly, I want a COMPLETE game when I buy one. I mean, what's with this DLC craze anyway? If this whole "premium" thing takes off, it's only a matter of time before they release half-finished games and charge for the other half. It's a VERY slippery slope we're on. Does anybody feel cheated that Halo doesn't have DLC? I sure as hell don't. I'll tell you all what I told Joey yesterday: As much as I loved RTCW and love Rainbow Six 3, if they offered "premium" DLC, I wouldn't get it. Why? Because the games are great, as is. They're not trying to "extend the life of the game" or "provide EVEN MORE gaming fun", they're trying to make money. They're trying to squeeze every penny they can out of us and I'm not havin' it. :x I say take all the "premium" content, go back to the drawing board and make a sequel, which I'll buy, if it's good AND complete. Plus, let's not forget the whole "level playing field" thing. I like that on XBL everyone's on equal footing, unlike PC gaming or even PS2 online. IMO, it's only a matter of time before "premium" DLC takes the form of faster cars, more powerful weapons, etc. Stuff to REALLY sweeten the pot, to MAKE you want to spend the MEASLY $5 (or 10, maybe 20?). THEN the shit is REALLY gonna hit the fan. Hell, I can't even play Links (a game I spent $50 on, BTW :roll:) with you guys if you play on the new map(s). The rift is already forming. Don't tell me that MS said it from the start or that it's the future. That's a bunch of marketing crap. It's up to US to decide what's right or wrong. I've made my choice. I've voted with my dollars or lack thereof. OK, rant over. Sorry for thread-jacking. :green:
  19. This isn't "The Matrix", folks. This whole thing is NOT about control...it's about MONEY. Unless you mean control of revenue.Why would EA spend (lose) money on an online service unless Sony's giving them some $$$. They spend money on a service then provide it for FREE. Something doesn't add up (pun intended). If EA NEVER went online, they'd still be in good shape (kinda like Nintendo). Their titles sell ridiculously well and let's face it, online console gamers (PS2 & XBL) are only a fraction of their customers. So why do it at all? To get into the online thing? Then why not give XBL a shot, if they're so interested in online gaming? Hell, if they made Madden football XBL-compatible tomorrow, they'd sell 100,000 copies in a flash. EA knows it. But they're not doing it because of "control" issues. :roll: I don't think so.
  20. The more I think about it, the more this is bothering me. :x I don't like the whole "premium" DLC to start, but this really blows. Let's say the next tourney consists of all "new" DLC maps. Guess what? I can't take part 'cause I WON'T shell out the extra $5. I don't know, it's a little like extortion to me. I know it's my choice and blah, blah, blah, but it just seems wrong. Whatever.
  21. Then Sony has GOT to be hiting them off with money or something. I can't believe that EA would want MS to pay, while Sony gets a free ride. Plus, MS has an existing online service, meaning devs just have to write the code to take advantage (right?), while EA had to CREATE an online service for the PS2 and then not charge a fee, in effect losing money. Weird.
  22. Sorry, but no dice! I'm boycotting this whole "premium" thing. Especially with a game like Links which, granted I like and have a great time playing, but I feel there's enough courses as is. But, to all those paying for new courses...ENJOY!
  23. Just a question, since I don't own a PS2, does EA charge to play their sports titles online? If not, especially after reading that article, it would seem that Sony's giving them a slice of the pie. I think it's entirely fair that they wanna be paid for their "intellectual property." But... From MS' point of view, apparently they've never given any 3rd party devs any revenue from Xbox LIve. That's the status quo, why change it for EA? MS is probably telling them that if they want to make money off of XBL, they should charge a monthly fee, 'cause there's NO WAY we're giving you money. But... EA probably doesn't wanna charge monthly fees 'cause they're worried not too many people will pay them (I know I, sure as hell, wouldn't). Maybe they're worried about charging people, on top of the $50-70 a year or $6 a month for XBL, and looking like a BIG, BAD CORPORATE GREED MACHINE. Personally, I don't give a damn if EA goes Live or not. They've got NOTHING I wanna play online (I hate sports...except for Links ) But, hopefully this can be resolved so that those who do want EA online can play without paying extra fees. But, IMHO, I don't see how. :?
  24. If I'm not playing Rainbow Six 3, I'm thinking about it. :oops: I might throw some Links in every now and then, but 95% of my time is spent playing RB6 3.
  • Create New...