| Username | Draenor |
| Real Name | Joe |
| Rank | Elite Member |
| Joined | May 16, 2003 |
| Gender | Male |
| Age | 21 |
| Location | Rancho Cordova, CA, United States |
| Last Visit | May 15, 2008 |
| Post Count | 6198 |
| Biography | I poop too much
|
| Quote | [Insert Tool lyrics] |
It has come to my attention, and the attention of many prominent game review sites, that this generation of consoles, especially the Xbox 360, seems intent on bringing the Real Time Strategy experience to the consoles. I am primarily a console gamer, this is mostly due to the fact that my PC is utterly out of date and useless when it comes to any game that came out after Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War.
This brings me to my big question for developers: Why not develop a keyboard and mouse attachment for the Xbox 360 that is usable for the RTS games that they seem intent on developing? Now, I am not one to go around yelling at console gamers about the superiority of keyboard and mouse controls for First Person Shooters, but it would be difficult for me to deny the superiority of a keyboard and mouse set up for Real Time Strategy games.
Now I know the most common argument against a keyboard and mouse peripheral for console RTS games is that it would give an unfair advantage to players who did not have the money to buy a keyboard and mouse for the game. It's a valid concern, but not one that does not have easy solutions. My proposal is to include options and settings for online match making that allow game hosts to choose whether or not to allow players who have USB keyboards and mouses attached to their 360's. Of course, a host couldnot select to allow only players who are playing with a controler if the host was using a mouse himself, and any attempt to plug in the peripherals once the game had already started would simply boot the player and result in a loss for his or her (lol girls play games?) record. PROBLEM SOLVED!
I desperately would love to see RTS games come to prominence on the console scene, but i just don't see it happening until one developer grows some balls and throws in mouse and keyboard peripherals with their game.
Originally posted by LuckyCurse
Originally posted by DraenorYou're not the intended audience. It would be like asking my grandmother to enjoy Clerks.
Originally posted by peaceandlove
Originally posted by Cabe2323I like this game.
I think this is fricken hilarious.
I see your Dane Cook and raise you George Carlin. Which show would you like me to post?
The difference is that Dane Cook is actually funny, whereas George Carlin is mostly annoying with a few bits of slightly funny thrown in...it's very frustrating to watch a 10 minute tirade only to laugh a couple of times.
- LC
Oh okay...so I guess you're not Dane Cook's intended audience? Those people being those that want to laugh at something that is funny without feeling the need to make a political statement with their choice in stand up comedians?
Okay then.
You're right though, I'm not George Carlin's intended audience, because I happen to believe that the funny should come first in comedy, not political tirades.
Originally posted by peaceandlove
Originally posted by Cabe2323I like this game.
I think this is fricken hilarious.
I see your Dane Cook and raise you George Carlin. Which show would you like me to post?
The difference is that Dane Cook is actually funny, whereas George Carlin is mostly annoying with a few bits of slightly funny thrown in...it's very frustrating to watch a 10 minute tirade only to laugh a couple of times.
Originally posted by gnomexxx
Originally posted by BlurrAgain, someone trying to take away from the importance of historical perspective.
I'm just sick of all these people who can't make a point or argument for themselves, and thus have to say things like "Well Einstein said this about religion" or "Lindsay Lohan said this about politics" to make it out like they're right. Just because someone's good at one thing doesn't mean they're right about everything they say.
Many people say Thomas Jefferson is one of the most important figures in the US history, and his opinions on the US way of life stand in many places today, does that mean we should also follow his opinion on slavery? You know who else is famous? Tom Cruise, lets ask his opinion on religion, right?
These types of arguments are absolutely ludicrous. You find some random famous person and then, if their opinion matches yours, you tout them as an expert on the subject. This is bullcrap. Case in point, someone brought up Sir Isaac Newton. Arguably just as influential on science as Einstein was, he had a very strong faith in God. Yet someone tries to dismiss his opinion because it doesn't match with what they want. Do you not see how retarded and circular these arguments are?
"My famous person says there's no God"
"My famous person says there is"
"Your famous person practiced alchemy so his opinion isn't valid"
"Yeah well your famous person had frizzy hair, so his opinion isn't valid"
"Well this other famous person has one eye bigger than the other, and he says there isn't a God"
"Your famous person has the wrong eye that's bigger, that means they're wrong"Do I need to keep going? Get your own damn opinions people. Stop relying on people you deify to give your opinion to you. This is the same stupid reason why everyone's so obsessed with Paris Hilton and Tom Cruise and Britney Spears, and so forth. You act like they're somehow better than you, that their opinion matters more than yours because they're famous. Get a reality check please.
We as a human race advance in many ways, including our thinking. You cannot look to one person in history to get your ideas from no more than you can look to history to gain a very firm moral foundation for todays society.
We are much different than people even 100 years ago! People in history should be considered as a whole in evaluating and devising an opinion. They can be influences, but the biggest influence should be the culmination of knowledge as a whole.
We are definitely smarter and wiser than people in the past. We are the end product of history. And someday we will be left behind and the pinnacle of human development will be future generations. It's just the way things are.
I would disagree with the idea that we are smarter or more wise than people from the past. We have simply built on the ideas of people who have already lived. How many origional ideas do we have today? We have a few, but most of them cannot be tested and are based upon things that have already been found out by other people anyway...It actually reminds me of rap artists who remake old songs...do you think that P-Diddy is smarter and more wise than aerosmith because he took one of their songs and did something new with it? No? Well that's basically what we are doing with modern science. Of course it's not a much larger and more complex level, but it's the same principal. Does it make P-diddy stupid? No, but it certainly doesn't make him smarter or more wise than the artists that he rips off.
![]()
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe
Originally posted by Draenor
I think that this is a fairly easy question to answer.
Obviously, people who DO believe in God, would change their way of living, especailly depending on which religion you were...Buddhists would see a slight change, i think, if it was proven that all things are naturalistic...Whereas Christians and Jews would, by in large, change dramatically. Of course I am speaking in generalities here, so don't get on me about not speaking for individual circumstance.
As for the atheists...why would they change? They live under a presupposition just as all religion followers do, the only difference is that their presupposition would be proven to be correct...so would they live their lives differently? Not fundamentaly, but they'd probably be pretty snooty about it :)
As for me, of course I would...Do you think that I LIKE trying to live a life that is Christ like? Well, that's a loaded question because while it is a very difficult thing to do that most people would not understand, it is also the most fulfilling thing that I have ever experienced. I would live my life differently, would I become a bad person and start looting stores and raping women? Well, I probably would be more apt to just taking things that I wanted (not necessarily stealing and certainly not raping, but I certainly wouldn't have the question lingering in the back of my mind "is this something that God would accept?"
I think that my position is fairly middle of the ground here....I don't think that you would find a lot of people who genuinely wish that they didn't believe in God so that they could go around sinning as they wished...you would find some, but then again, those people have faith for the wrong reasons...Fear of the Lord isn't supposed ot be fear of hell, it's supposed to be an awe of God's power...That's what the origional intent with that phrase was, but now it's mostly used by anger fathers who want to "put the fear of God" into their daughter's boyfriends.
Not to pry, but are you protestant or catholic? If you're catholic then there isn't any contradiction since you will be judged by your works. If you're protestant then you've got a problem because only the damned feel oppressed by God's laws. The elect are just naturally God fearing, of course.
i'm not Catholic, but I did not say that I feel oppressed by God's laws, only that it is not always the easiest thing to live a life that resembles Christ...I didn't mean that I dislike my choice in faith.
Originally posted by Blurr
I'm just sick of all these people who can't make a point or argument for themselves, and thus have to say things like "Well Einstein said this about religion" or "Lindsay Lohan said this about politics" to make it out like they're right. Just because someone's good at one thing doesn't mean they're right about everything they say.
Many people say Thomas Jefferson is one of the most important figures in the US history, and his opinions on the US way of life stand in many places today, does that mean we should also follow his opinion on slavery? You know who else is famous? Tom Cruise, lets ask his opinion on religion, right?
These types of arguments are absolutely ludicrous. You find some random famous person and then, if their opinion matches yours, you tout them as an expert on the subject. This is bullcrap. Case in point, someone brought up Sir Isaac Newton. Arguably just as influential on science as Einstein was, he had a very strong faith in God. Yet someone tries to dismiss his opinion because it doesn't match with what they want. Do you not see how retarded and circular these arguments are?
"My famous person says there's no God"
"My famous person says there is"
"Your famous person practiced alchemy so his opinion isn't valid"
"Yeah well your famous person had frizzy hair, so his opinion isn't valid"
"Well this other famous person has one eye bigger than the other, and he says there isn't a God"
"Your famous person has the wrong eye that's bigger, that means they're wrong"Do I need to keep going? Get your own damn opinions people. Stop relying on people you deify to give your opinion to you. This is the same stupid reason why everyone's so obsessed with Paris Hilton and Tom Cruise and Britney Spears, and so forth. You act like they're somehow better than you, that their opinion matters more than yours because they're famous. Get a reality check please.
thank you.
What are your views on PvP?