EllipsusD

As crazy as it sounds, it actually works.

Damn... I really need to check the boards more often if I'm missing stuff this important. When I read the thread title I figured that this thread would just have people letting off steam about stuff, but I had no idea that something this horrible had happened. I never posted at NewDoom, and almost never visited, but still... I can't help but feel bad about this. This kind of shit just shouldn't happen... you just don't strike against your own people like that, ya know?

Nocturne rocks. I love that game. They were working on a sequel, but I haven't heard anything about it in ages... it was probably cancelled... Best zombie? I'm very partial to the zombies in the Night of the Living Dead remake (it's my favorite zombie movie of all time), but the way the 'zombies' were done in 28 Days Later (which clearly affected the way they were done in the Dawn of the Dead remake) is probably the most frightening. I would say it's a tie between those two.

If I remember correctly... I think the gore in Turok 2 was a little more extreme than in SoF. Then again, in SoF you were killing humans, so I can see how it would get more attention...

There's no Dunkin' Donuts around here. If I can't get the donuts... does that mean I'm going to Hell?

Maybe it's just the quality of the trailer, but if you ask me, it doesn't look that great. Even if it turns out to be an amazing film, it'll still flop at the box office.

Yeah... the last time I saw a game for above the $50 mark was back in the SNES days when most of those game retailed for around $60. I seriously doubt that these two games will change that. But then again, what do I know?

Heh. It's so stupid that it's amusing.

Shogo would have been cooler if it didn't suck so much ass. If it was redone with the current capabilities of games... and with voice acting that wasn't painful to listen to, then maybe it would be a good game... but as it is now it's worse than Blood 2... and don't even get me started on that game.

Actually, that's the part I just finished (well, turning on the main engine to be exact). What sucks for me is that I have my points in strength, endurance, hacking, and research... which makes it difficult to fight the robots (they all explode in your face). Oh well... it's still a lot of fun.

With the talk of System Shock 2 going on, I decided to go back and play it again. Even on easy (I first played in on impossible) and knowing (somewhat) where things were, I still find it to be a very frightening game. I wish they would make another one...

System Shock 2? It wasn't that hard. You just had to be prepaired to use the crystal shard (as your only weapon) at the end. Even the ninja/cyborg things could be taken out pretty easily with it if you surprised them. To tell the truth, I actually had more trouble with Unreal than with System Shock 2. But talking about it does make me want to go back and play it again... Splatterhouse 3 was pretty hard... a little harder than 2 (the first being the easiest) but still somewhat playable up until the end. One of these days I'll finish the maps I'm working on for it. Maybe. The Megaman series is hard? Are you kidding? I can beat all of them (on the console- none of that emulated with save state crap) without too much difficulty (though the last bosses of 7 and 9 were a pain in the ass). There are much more difficult sidescrollers out there. I would say my vote goes to Fatal Frame. Not for the main game, but for trying to unlock everything. Try getting a high enough shot on the last boss to get and 'S' rating and you'll see what I mean. It's possible, but hard to do and ultimately very rewarding.

Here's a quick though: why is god a 'he'? If god is perfection, and the very basis of gender is duality, then wouldn't god be at 'it'? To say the 'he'/'she'/'it' is of any gender is to say that it is less than perfect, at least as I see it.

I can't stand spiders (especially the fleshy ones), water that I can't see the bottom of, and falling. Apparently I have no problem with hights as long as I'm secure... it's only the falling part that scares me... and as much as 2 feet is too much for me. As stupid as that all sounds, I have no idea why I'm afraid of any of that. I pretty much always have been, and that's just the way it is.

Hey now, Mike Tyson can open doors. It just takes a few tries...

Maybe I'm speaking out of line here, but some people just wish to live in their own way without having anyone else telling them what's right and wrong. Maybe a person lives the same way as a religion teaches, but in doing so they are living that way because it's the way they desire to live that way, not because some person or some book told them that that's how they should live. If you ask me, believing in something just as a 'just in case' isn't really the best reason to do so. Neither is "so I won't go to Hell" or "I'll just kind of believe". But that's aside from the point, I suppose. What I really mean to say is that you may not understand why a person believes or disbelieves in one thing or another, and they may not understand you in that light as well, but the best thing to do is just to let people be as they will rather than suggesting they do something different. But then again, that may be out of line as well.

Heh, this reminds me of a Family Guy quote: "Oh my God! I'm so offended! I'm going to do something about this." "Mike, there's not really anything you can do." "Wow, you're right. I guess I'm just going to have to develop a sense of humor, huh?"

Yeah, darn language barrier being all... barrier... like. Anyway, a new Bomberman game could be cool, if done right. I just wish I had some idea of what this one was about.

Is that the solution to everything in this thread? I'll read it when I get a chance to.

Lol. Are you kidding? They're thinking about the risks. It's starts with them sending a man into space, and the next thing you know somebody in a mask is crashing a space colony into the Earth. No thank you, I say. No thank you.

Before has no meaning? I'm not sure I understand that. I suppose if you were thinking in abstract terms that would work, but as I see it I typed the word 'Before' prior to typing the word 'meaning', ya know? Existence is a sequence of events, on leading to another, and inevitably one state of existence must exist before another state of existence. If you can say that there was something before now, then you can also say that there was something before then. Then in this case just happens to be the Big Bang (though I was not limiting the meaning of my post to that). Even a state of there being no state is a state that can be placed before the Big Bang, so it would make sense that "before" can be used in such a way. Unless, like I said, you are talking about a more abstract take on it. As for it being possible for the universe to be finite and have no edge... well, it doesn't necessarily have to have a solid edge of matter in the way I had mentioned, but for it to be finite there must be a point where it does not go any further (and there most likely is no existence beyond it). That point, as infintesimal, intangible, and unstable as it may be is still an 'edge' none the less.

But how did something come from nothing? And something else to think about : If something comes from nothing, then was the nothing something before there was ever the something in the nothing, and if so, what was there before nothing? If not, then it something came from nothing, then was that something also everything since nothing cannot be something to compare with the something in question? If so, that would make that something infinately big, since it is everything, wouldn't it? But at the same time, if that single something expanded into more than one something, would the bounderies of 'is' and 'isn't' also expand? Or would each something become smaller since there is now more to everything than there was before? And even more, if there are now two somethings surrounded by nothing, and it must be the type of nothing that cannot be considered something, btw, then what would be inbetween those two somethings? Would they be infinately close together, or would they create a nothing inbetween them... and if they created a nothing would it be the same nothing as surrounds them, or would it be the kind of nothing that could be considered something, making more than two somethings altogether? But if a tangible nothing were to be created between two incredibly small somethings, then that nothing(which is something) would have to be smaller than the small somethings. And even more, now that a tangible nothing is created, what bounds would it have? Would it be contained within the space separating the two somethings? If so, that would mean that existance is surrounded by a tangible barrier (that may or may not be constantly growing). But what if the new tangible nothing took the place (out of neccesity) of the intangible nothing (complete lack of any existance)? What boundaries would it have then? Would it have any? What would this tangible nothing contain? Or to defeat the purpose, can there ever be a tangible nothing? So many confusing questions...

In single player? It would be like "I give you life... oh shit! Shoot him, not me!". However, if it could ressurect comrades or marines to fight against you, then there could be some cool moments.

Hell, why not just dig up something from Username. I'm sure people would get a kick out of that.

And four to go.