Black Ops or Halo Reach???

[Firetooth]

Speak for yourself, Neo.

You twist my points to make me look unintelligent. You twist my words to make me look ignorant. You twist just about everything I say so I can never win, or even make a point. I think the problem is in your mind and not in my posts. You fill in the gaps for yourself. Nobody else I talk with seems to have your problem.

On the Wii comparison, we have different definitions of comparable. I see comparable as "on a similar level," but I have no idea what you view that as, but clearly you see comparable graphics differently to me. That's not me lacking comprehension, that's individual differences.

Visually is a pretty simple word. It is an adverb that means of vision - of the eyes.
Comparable is also a simple word. Is is an adjective that indicates the quality of being usable for comparison.

Apart, these words are amusingly basic concepts that are more or less broad. Together, they say a very specific thing.

When someone says something is visually comparable as opposed to simply stating the visual qualities or stating that something is 'comparable' it implies that to the human eye, and in the interaction between the eye and the brain, there is very little that is going to be missed from frame to frame. That isn't to say that there is a rather apparent gap between the Wii and its competitors on study, that is to say that as the player advances at an appropriate pace and absorbs, defines, and acts upon information being received in real time, almost nothing of the after effects is going to be missed, nor the lack thereof perceived. I am fully aware that the graphics of the Wii are technically inferior to all of its competitors. However, this does not become apparent until a visual comparison is made between any or all of the competitors, putting the Wii on a level of being visually comparable to the Xbox, PS3, and PC.

I can tell if I play something on the Wii or a console with superior processing power without a comparison, and I'm generally shocked if you can't. Your point was the graphics on a visual level aren't radically different. My point is they are, particularly if you have a fine eye for detail.

Why should I argue with you, thought? You're arrogant, callous and frankly too [darn] nostalgic and self-absorbed to ever accept a point in this argument, or any other, that differs from yours.  Make a reply that actually addresses any of my points instead of calling me stupid in a round about way. Is that too much to ask? Besides the Wii part of your post, the rest of your post is meaningless fluff designed to insult and annoy.  The ironic thing is you are guilty of the exact same thing you accuse me of, by saying Skyrim isn't a modern game.

You think but don't seem to feel. Hence you completely ignoring me saying video games are more about the experience then the gameplay. You are thoroughly unpleasant to argue, discuss or debate with, because you are unable to accept different viewpoints. You frequently insult or taunt those who's views differ from yours, and not just in this discussion. The core rule to arguing is to always show respect, and you never do this. If you are having a thought-provoking argument where the other person is civil, say with Shadow or Volkov, it can actually be quite informative and interesting, and in a way enjoyable. With you, this is not the case, and judging from people's replies, I can tell I'm not the only one who feels this way. You are incredibly self absorbed and this comes across from your posts.

1)I'll let you, Sharpy, and Firetooth blow your heads about that one RQ i'll just sit here and laugh.
******
2)Seriously. There is a difference between my posts which force someone to look at their reasoning for supporting something and a post which is intentionally written from the perspective of butthurt that is designed to literally abuse logical fallacies rather than attempt to defend a position.
******
3)The intention of the post you reference went right over your head.
******
4)You have to be in the 14 to 16 range.

You just have to be.

You are like a less visible firetooth.


---

Also I appear to have struck a nerve.

Was it the blunt honesty or the blunt truth?

Your points aren't nearly as complex as you think. To be frank, you come off as an incredibly bitter individual. You don't want to pay for games, so you pirate them. You don't want to pay for DLC, so you complain. You don't like people daring to have a different viewpoint, so you insult them. You don't like the facts games have changed and are more accessible and don't fulfill your perfect vision of games, so you insult the whole generation and anybody stupid enough to gleam any joy from the games within it. Pretty much every person I've mentioned your way of debating to has said they dislike the way you are aggressive and rude.

It's not just in your way of arguing, either. Everything you do here seems to show you're bitter. You never want to build net, only destroy it. You never want to encourage people, only pick apart their points and highlight their faults. You're even so bitter you admitted to me you think people with birth defects are detrimental to society because some of them will end up with a higher paid job then you. You DOS websites you dislike. You lie to people and manipulate them to suit you. You use your influence and intelligence to insult those less intelligent, younger, or less important then you.

I've never left an argument insulted or feeling like I've been mocked before. Even if my point was complete and utter rubbish and I was arguing with somebody vastly more intelligent then me, like Volkov, and I was completely refusing to see reason, I'd still feel like the person I was talking to was trying to show some level of respect.

You have a serious attitude problem. And unless you make an effort to correct it, I shan't enter a debate with you again, because your disregard for manners and your inability to debate civilly makes it an unenjoyable experience. Your arguments are generally good, but the way you present them and how you treat fellow members of this community is not. If you'd been more civil in how you said you find my points are poorly articulated for example, I'd probably not be exploding back at you.

[Dark Claws]

Since when was this the UMD? And to answer Shadows question (way back in) I didn't understand how killing enemies made you lose health. It didn't really make much sense. But apparently arcades were losing money because gauntlet was so easy so they made you lose health after killing someone to level out the playing field. And because I'm too lazy to read the posts made over me (and kinda wanta lighten up the mood. It's video games, not the death penalty) I'll switch it to an arguement that videogames now are at least comparable to videogames then. I mean, there is now a plot vs just jumping over barrels to get to an ape that stole your girlfriend.

[Shadow]

What question did I ask that that is an answer for?

[Gen. Volkov]

You are twisting the way you define how modern a game is into something it isn't. Objectively, Skyrim and Starcraft ARE modern games.

Not really. Both are just updates of much older games. There are a few changes between the originals and the newer versions, but the game designers have not changed anything really fundamental to the games, because those fundamental similarities are what make the games WORK. Starcraft with a completely redesigned interface would not be Starcraft, and probably would not work as well. Despite the release dates, neither are really "modern" games.

Originality is not the be all and end all of video game development.

It should be, which, once again, is Neo's point. A crap game with good graphics is still a crap game.

You honestly think those don't apply to your posts?

I don't. He's straight-forward and blunt, but not melodramatic.

Also, that ego of yours is dangerous, lol. Your posts really don't contain as many intellectual thoughts and argumentative devices as you think they do. You are yet to "force" me to re-evaluate any position I've ever had, ever.

This says a lot more about you than it does about him. Neo has made some good points in this thread.

Deus Ex? Not special? Branching storylines, great levels of choice in how you play, a rich universe? Generally considered the best PC game of all time? You're right, not too special.

It's a good game, but it's not particularly original. Go read a little sci-fi, there are literally hundreds of books dealing with exactly the same concepts Deus Ex does. Heck, Asimov was writing about that sort of stuff back in the 1950s.

And calm down, slightly...melodramatic, maybe, post? The WII is a terrible system processing wise, but it has a ton of good games and is an innovative concept. I don't dislike the Wii. We have one ourselves, and actually got it before the 360, or even Mass Effect 1. My point is you were wrong comparing the Wii's graphics to the 360's or PS3's. If you thought you were right, you would've tried going for a rebuttal other then a FULL CAPS RAGE POST.

Actually he was making fun of your rage posts about the quality of the Wii's graphics. Perhaps you didn't use all caps, but they had the same effect.

Neo: Solid point about the Wii's graphics
You: "Blah blah blah" TL;DR = NO WAI BRO, WII GRAPHICS ARE TEH SUXOR!

Yes, the PS3 and the 360 both have better graphics than the Wii, but you can still play the same games on the Wii with no difference in gameplay. OK, you can't see every individual strand on the rope, but so what? Game is still playable, with graphics that are better than anything from the previous generation of consoles.

You twist my points to make me look unintelligent. You twist my words to make me look ignorant. You twist just about everything I say so I can never win, or even make a point. I think the problem is in your mind and not in my posts. You fill in the gaps for yourself. Nobody else I talk with seems to have your problem.

Honestly, I don't see much of that. You attacking him on a personal level is far worse than anything he has said in this thread. This is why I often avoid talking with you Firetooth. I am more civil than Neo, but whenever I make a good point that you can't argue with, you start attacking me, not the point I am making.

[Firetooth]

@ Gen Volkov.

I did acknowledge that, but just because something is a sequel does not mean it was released 5years earlier. Skyrim does differ in some ways to Morrowind, and definitely compared to daggerfall or Arena. I could understand saying a HD remastering is not a modern game, but not a sequel with some major differences. Does morrowind have duel-wielding, horse travel, the amount of skills, the guilds. the enemies, companions, houses and many more features Skyrim has? Whilst Morrowind has a larger variety of weapons then oblivion (and I'm guessing Skyrim) it does not have the dyanmic magic and dragon shout system Skyrim does.

No, is the right answer. (though no doubt some mods have corrected that, and technically you can acquire a manor in Morrowind)

Originality is a key point, but at the end of the day I'd rather a game, film or book was good but a little cliche, like Avatar, then original but really poor quality. Not every person can handle different concepts every year, and some people like stability. The CoD situation is ridiculous, but there are definitely people who want sequels of relative similarity every 2 or 3 years. Hence why the Fifa games are so successful. There are regular updates, eg. instant free kicks, dyanmic collision system every year, enough so not to upset the balance of the game, but enough difference for people to still want to play and enjoy them.

Never said Neo hasn't made any good points, infact I specifically mentioned he has. Just his attitude towards his own posts is never a good one to have. You can't deny that his manner of posting shows he's self confident and dismissive of others. And he does overstate the importance of some issues, such as stating that modern games are all terrible, suck, and you're stupid for playing them in his first post.

I was more referring to Deus Ex in gameplay terms than experience. It's familiar ground story and universe wise, but then again, pretty much everything is nowadays. It's the way it's presented that makes the game great, alongside the innovative game play that prioritizes choice. That's beside my main point, though. Do you really think Deus Ex would be as interesting with, say, MW3's storyline, but the same gameplay it currently has? At the end of the day Deus Ex is just an example of the kind of games I meant, though. Great gameplay AND great (or at least good, if you want to look at it from the perspective of a well-read cyberpunk fan) story.

On the Wii, he said Wii's graphics were visually comparable, I stated there were differences. My post was slightly sarcastic at best, but not ragey. I didn't even make the point in my first post, and it's a point both Windy (to an extent) and Sharptooth both made, yet Neo didn't say a single word to them. Which makes me think this is more to do with me then my posts.

And I can't ever recall attacking you, or anybody in the past in recent years (ie. when I'm older then 12) other then Kilk and Neo, who provoke me first, and in this case, Neo is the one attacking me and verbally prodding others throughout the thread.

[Gen. Volkov]

I did acknowledge that, but just because something is a sequel does not mean it was released 5years earlier. Skyrim does differ in some ways to Morrowind, and definitely compared to daggerfall or Arena. I could understand saying a HD remastering is not a modern game, but not a sequel with some major differences. Does morrowind have duel-wielding, horse travel, the amount of skills, the guilds. the enemies, companions, houses and many more features Skyrim has? Whilst Morrowind has a larger variety of weapons then oblivion (and I'm guessing Skyrim) it does not have the dyanmic magic and dragon shout system Skyrim does.

The first line in this is just silly. I'm going to ignore it. Yes, Firetooth, there are minor differences, which I acknowledged, but what you list off are not major differences, they are minor updates. It's like when Halo 2 and 3 introduced stuff like dual wielding and the ability to selectively turn on cloaking, if you had picked it up earlier. All the Halo games are basically the same game, they just have different plot-lines and slightly different options in gameplay. Same deal with Skyrim. The earlier games had magic, and the dragon shouts, while cool, are basically just a more powerful magic. The differences between Skyrim and earlier Elder Scrolls games are minor, not major. Which is fine, the Elder Scrolls are a fun concept, and there is a new plotline, but that doesn't mean it's a new game at a fundamental level.

Originality is a key point, but at the end of the day I'd rather a game, film or book was good but a little cliche, like Avatar, then original but really poor quality.

That is just sad, in my opinion. I'd rather people take the chance and make something original than crank out the same crap year after year.

Not every person can handle different concepts every year, and some people like stability.

Sorry, but this a load of BS. People handle new concepts every single day.

The CoD situation is ridiculous, but there are definitely people who want sequels of relative similarity every 2 or 3 years. Hence why the Fifa games are so successful. There are regular updates, eg. instant free kicks, dyanmic collision system every year, enough so not to upset the balance of the game, but enough difference for people to still want to play and enjoy them.

The FIFA, NCAA, Madden, etc. games used to be in a slightly different category than COD. Early on, before a net connection became common on consoles, you had to bring out a new game every year because rosters changed every year. The slightly changed game mechanics were a bonus. Now they could probably just release one game and update the rosters online. Madden does this. NCAA still does not. The fact that they are still bringing out new games every year now puts them in exactly the same category as the CoD folks. They could bring out one game, and update everything online, and then bring out a new game every 2-3 years when they make bigger changes to gameplay.

Never said Neo hasn't made any good points, infact I specifically mentioned he has. Just his attitude towards his own posts is never a good one to have. You can't deny that his manner of posting shows he's self confident and dismissive of others.

So are your posts. Everyone's posts are. Perhaps Neo is more blunt about it, but every post I've seen you make has been more less saying, "I'm right and you are stupid to disagree with me." The only difference is that Neo says this outright, instead of dressing it up with nicer and more words.

And he does overstate the importance of some issues, such as stating that modern games are all terrible, suck, and you're stupid for playing them in his first post.

No he doesn't. Modern games do suck, on the whole. There are a few exceptions, like Portal, and some of the legacy games like Skyrim are alright, but the majority are just terrible.

I was more referring to Deus Ex in gameplay terms than experience. It's familiar ground story and universe wise, but then again, pretty much everything is nowadays.

Well, first off, you did at first talk about how great Deus Ex was as an "experience" so this is just BS, secondly since Neo was not talking about gameplay, because you weren't, this is just a silly position to take. This sort of thing, by the way, is one of the reasons Neo gets so frustrated with you. When someone shows you that you are wrong, you simply change what you are saying so that you are not, even if that change is a direct contradiction to what you said earlier.

It's the way it's presented that makes the game great, alongside the innovative game play that prioritizes choice. That's beside my main point, though. Do you really think Deus Ex would be as interesting with, say, MW3's storyline, but the same gameplay it currently has?

Well, no, but that's because MW3's storyline sucks, because CoD is a game designed around the multiplayer mode, and the campaign is mostly a side-show. You could, however, do Deus Ex in a modern setting, with the same gameplay, and it would be a good game. Heck, you could even keep the majority of the plot. There have been several games since Deus Ex that were set in the present day that gave the protagonist super-powers. Wouldn't require a ton of modification to set Deus Ex in the very near future.

At the end of the day Deus Ex is just an example of the kind of games I meant, though. Great gameplay AND great (or at least good, if you want to look at it from the perspective of a well-read cyberpunk fan) story.

It also came out in 2000, when they were still making good games. Neo even said it was a good game. Human revolution is not nearly as good a game as the original, which only reinforces the point that modern games suck.

On the Wii, he said Wii's graphics were visually comparable, I stated there were differences. My post was slightly sarcastic at best, but not ragey. I didn't even make the point in my first post, and it's a point both Windy (to an extent) and Sharptooth both made, yet Neo didn't say a single word to them. Which makes me think this is more to do with me then my posts.

You were raging.

Yeah, saying the Wii has comparable graphics is ridiculous. No excuses for that remark.

Maybe not all-caps RAGEPOST, but not far from it.

As for Neo's response, he was making it to both you and Sharptooth. Note how he quoted both of you. That's usually a good indication of who a person is responding too.

And I can't ever recall attacking you, or anybody in the past in recent years (ie. when I'm older then 12) other then Kilk and Neo, who provoke me first

I can recall it.

and in this case, Neo is the one attacking me and verbally prodding others throughout the thread.

Neo is being Neo. If you cannot handle it, don't join the conversation. Besides, what you said to him was far worse than what he said to you.

[Firetooth]

Good post. I'll edit in or post a new reply tomorrow but I don't have time now.

[Dark Claws]

To answer Shadow's question, you were saying something about the fact that I needed to wikipedia gauntlet to figure out what it was. not a question, but a statement. As for the Firetooth vs. Neo debate *sigh* go to the UMD and converse here. This is a thread that I am seriously considering to spam because of your serious behavior. It's a stinking videogame engine, not Vietnam.

[Kilkenne]

To answer Shadow's question, you were saying something about the fact that I needed to wikipedia gauntlet to figure out what it was. not a question, but a statement. As for the Firetooth vs. Neo debate *sigh* go to the UMD and converse here. This is a thread that I am seriously considering to spam because of your serious behavior. It's a stinking videogame engine, not Vietnam.

Clearly they should have to debate somewhere you feel appropriate because it makes you uncomfortable, and for that reason alone. Please start spamming to see what happens.

[Firetooth]

I would like to retract my earlier statements about Neo and say I apologized to him.

The first line in this is just silly. I'm going to ignore it. Yes, Firetooth, there are minor differences, which I acknowledged, but what you list off are not major differences, they are minor updates. It's like when Halo 2 and 3 introduced stuff like dual wielding and the ability to selectively turn on cloaking, if you had picked it up earlier. All the Halo games are basically the same game, they just have different plot-lines and slightly different options in gameplay. Same deal with Skyrim. The earlier games had magic, and the dragon shouts, while cool, are basically just a more powerful magic. The differences between Skyrim and earlier Elder Scrolls games are minor, not major. Which is fine, the Elder Scrolls are a fun concept, and there is a new plotline, but that doesn't mean it's a new game at a fundamental level.

Didn't say the concept is new. Few concepts for games as a whole are new, they're just spins on something familar. Games like Half-life 2 are very original in the way they present the concept, not in the concept itself.  

Also worth noting the first COD was released in 2003. Before Half-life 2, and only 3 years after the first Deus Ex. So whilst not exactly an old game, it's not exactly new. So how do all modern games suck if, by your logic, Skyrim isn't a modern game? I see what you mean by saying Skyrim isn't a modern game, but I would disagree with that, because a game is more then just a concept. The execution is also key. And the way they've changed the games since Morrowind has, in my opinion, has both had a very positive and slightly negative effect on the execution of the concept, and thus the resulting experience.

That is just sad, in my opinion. I'd rather people take the chance and make something original than crank out the same crap year after year.

Misinterpreting what I said. Not saying I want people to "crank out the same crap year after year," what I said was I'd rather enjoy a game for being fun then being original. I think taking chances are good, because you do get some fantastic results, and I don't think taking chances should be discouraged, but I'm just saying originality alone does not make a good game.


I'm also glad the hurt locker beat avatar in terms of oscars.

Sorry, but this a load of BS. People handle new concepts every single day.

Perhaps I should rephrase that to "some people do not enjoy/embrace new concepts." You can't deny that.

The FIFA, NCAA, Madden, etc. games used to be in a slightly different category than COD. Early on, before a net connection became common on consoles, you had to bring out a new game every year because rosters changed every year. The slightly changed game mechanics were a bonus. Now they could probably just release one game and update the rosters online. Madden does this. NCAA still does not. The fact that they are still bringing out new games every year now puts them in exactly the same category as the CoD folks. They could bring out one game, and update everything online, and then bring out a new game every 2-3 years when they make bigger changes to gameplay.

Valid point. Then again, could easily be argued the updates would not be available for those without xbox live. I personally don't buy new fifa games every year, but most people I know who do don't regret it or complain, where as they do so about the COD games.

So are your posts. Everyone's posts are. Perhaps Neo is more blunt about it, but every post I've seen you make has been more less saying, "I'm right and you are stupid to disagree with me." The only difference is that Neo says this outright, instead of dressing it up with nicer and more words.

The only post that could be applied to is the Wii one, and the processing power/quality of graphics is less subjective than the state of the industry seeing as you have some actual objective data to support your arguments with.

No he doesn't. Modern games do suck, on the whole. There are a few exceptions, like Portal, and some of the legacy games like Skyrim are alright, but the majority are just terrible.

In your opinion. This game has been a great year for gaming on the whole, despite the stinkers like MW3. Uncharted 3, Skyrim, Assassins Creed Revelations, Arkham City, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Rayman Origins, Zelda Skyward Sword.

Not denying there are a lot of bad games, but I do think you might be too critical of modern games. Overall, I enjoy most games I buy and have really enjoyed some enough to spend literally days on them. (though I do only own about 12-18 360 games)

Well, first off, you did at first talk about how great Deus Ex was as an "experience" so this is just BS, secondly since Neo was not talking about gameplay, because you weren't, this is just a silly position to take. This sort of thing, by the way, is one of the reasons Neo gets so frustrated with you. When someone shows you that you are wrong, you simply change what you are saying so that you are not, even if that change is a direct contradiction to what you said earlier.

I talked about it as an experience and in terms of gameplay. Posts below.

Deus Ex? Not special? Branching storylines, great levels of choice in how you play, a rich universe? Generally considered the best PC game of all time? You're right, not too special. Roll Eyes

Would Deus ex be nearly as interesting and powerful if it were set in a modern atmosphere?

The above was on a list of "Would X be as x without/with x?" So not overly special.

The game I ranted about as an experience was Mass Effect 2. I made some passing mentions of Deus Ex. I'm not sure why Deus Ex is being discussed so much, lol.

Well, no, but that's because MW3's storyline sucks, because CoD is a game designed around the multiplayer mode, and the campaign is mostly a side-show. You could, however, do Deus Ex in a modern setting, with the same gameplay, and it would be a good game. Heck, you could even keep the majority of the plot. There have been several games since Deus Ex that were set in the present day that gave the protagonist super-powers. Wouldn't require a ton of modification to set Deus Ex in the very near future.

Never said it would be a bad game. Just pointing out that the setting and storyline does have a role.

It also came out in 2000, when they were still making good games. Neo even said it was a good game. Human revolution is not nearly as good a game as the original, which only reinforces the point that modern games suck.

What, so there's a fixed date somewhere, and after that every game released is terrible?

Human Revolution is not as good, no, but it is nevertheless a very enjoyable game. In some ways I'd say it actually surpasses the original. In terms of theme, it's a lot more relevant to the world today, and I prefer the combat and aesthetic style.

You were raging.


Maybe not all-caps RAGEPOST, but not far from it.

As for Neo's response, he was making it to both you and Sharptooth. Note how he quoted both of you. That's usually a good indication of who a person is responding too.

But he didn't attack Sharp about it, he attacked me.

[/quote]

I can recall it.

Then either my memory is poor or yours is good.

Neo is being Neo. If you cannot handle it, don't join the conversation. Besides, what you said to him was far worse than what he said to you.

You're more or less right here.

[Neobaron]

Please keep in mind that I said that the first 2 Call of Duty games, as well as BF1942, were outstanding.

I have problems with everything that came after.

It is also worth pointing out (again) that I feel my generation ended with SotC, which was released in late 2005.

[Kilkenne]

I'm double posting because I can. Let me point out something that hasn't been addressed that I see right now in the gaming industry. The prices of games in the last decade don't seem to have raised significantly like the price of other goods. Heck, it can't possibly be keeping up with inflation. While I understand that in our heyday, we can all provide anecdotal evidence of how the games we were buying in 1994-1997 or whatnot for Sega Genesis were 25 dollars, my memory is such that games have been 40-50 bucks for the last ten years. I remember very vividly purchasing Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun (a huge letdown for me, idk if you guys played that) for fifty dollars when it came out. I believe I was in seventh grade so this was something like 2001. I could look this up but I'm lazy (and ugly).

Basically my point is that the price hasn't changed in a decade, but you are getting less content. Tiberian Sun nonwithstanding because the content in that game was crap. While I'm all for fighting the good fight to attempt to get developers to put more content into their games, the fact that the prices have stayed constant is an indicator that you're going to get less. Case in point, check out the size of bags that you get chips (crisps) in. It's approximately the same price you remember, and the packaging looks the same, but it's smaller and you're getting less.

And this doesn't even get into the bit where I get on my soapbox about how the price of any goods are just whatever the market will bear. If people didn't pay for it, they wouldn't sell it for that kind of price. But they can, and that's just the reality of things. It might be kind of a crummy reality, but it's the reality nonetheless.

EDIT: That wasn't a doublepost because two posts were made before I could post this. Lame.

[Firetooth]

I'm double posting because I can. Let me point out something that hasn't been addressed that I see right now in the gaming industry. The prices of games in the last decade don't seem to have raised significantly like the price of other goods. Heck, it can't possibly be keeping up with inflation. While I understand that in our heyday, we can all provide anecdotal evidence of how the games we were buying in 1994-1997 or whatnot for Sega Genesis were 25 dollars, my memory is such that games have been 40-50 bucks for the last ten years. I remember very vividly purchasing Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun (a huge letdown for me, idk if you guys played that) for fifty dollars when it came out. I believe I was in seventh grade so this was something like 2001. I could look this up but I'm lazy (and ugly).

Basically my point is that the price hasn't changed in a decade, but you are getting less content. Tiberian Sun nonwithstanding because the content in that game was crap. While I'm all for fighting the good fight to attempt to get developers to put more content into their games, the fact that the prices have stayed constant is an indicator that you're going to get less. Case in point, check out the size of bags that you get chips (crisps) in. It's approximately the same price you remember, and the packaging looks the same, but it's smaller and you're getting less.

And this doesn't even get into the bit where I get on my soapbox about how the price of any goods are just whatever the market will bear. If people didn't pay for it, they wouldn't sell it for that kind of price. But they can, and that's just the reality of things. It might be kind of a crummy reality, but it's the reality nonetheless.

EDIT: That wasn't a doublepost because two posts were made before I could post this. Lame.

Yep. Easter eggs in Britain are shrinking in size but going up in price. :(

Partly the reason Human Revolution was never going to be better than the original.

[Dark Claws]

Clearly they should have to debate somewhere you feel appropriate because it makes you uncomfortable, and for that reason alone. Please start spamming to see what happens.

Wow. Way to take a sarcastic comment seriously. You continue to prove my point of taking this way too seriosuly.

[Kilkenne]

Wow. Way to take a sarcastic comment seriously. You continue to prove my point of taking this way too seriosuly.

At least it's giving you a reason to post, right?