The fact is, old games were a shining example of how it can be entertaining.
Because how you "complete" your game, is based on how you are satisfied with it.

New FPS games such as CoD follow this mundane, boring pattern, CoD consisted of
Go to A. Go through a corridor. Cutscene. Go to B. Go to C. Cutscene. Go through corridor. Cutscene. End mission.


Older FPS games (Quake, Doom, etc)
Complete the level how you want to do it.
Rocket jump over barriers if you had enough health.
Bunny hop your way to victory.
Find all the secrets first before going to next level.
Accumulate as much kills and item pick ups as you can.
Use any types of weapon you want.
Do it as fast as you can.

That was gaming. You were the boss of the game, not some game that attempts at being realistic but fails miserably at being realistic or even delivering the slightest bit of entertainment that you paid for.
Older games consisted of;
Finding as much secrets as you can.
Racking up as much points/kills as much as you can.
Doing it as fast as you can.
Collecting the best items that the level has given you.
Make your own challenge (The old doom speed runs consisting of not using your gun, at all.)

To top it off, people who make maps for the old games, actually spent their time in making it fan-fucking-tastic and entertaining.

Games WERE made for the enjoyment and gameplay of the players.

Now? Games are made for money.
Why else would there be a 106821068th call of duty, fifa and all that milky milky bullshit AGAIN?

^ Quoted for truth.

An example would be Minecraft, for instance. Why? It opens up creativity.
Games like CoD just repeat the same shit, over, and over, and over again. CoD can't have a stable gaming community simply because of it's lack of diversity for modding.
Minecraft does not have any official modding system that allows players to download mods from other servers... yet. But they still have a massive modding community in less than 2 years, imagine how big the modding community would become when the official Minecraft client allows itself to download mods! We lack in games that openly allow creativity.

Whilst Somone77 is flaming people. He did make a point. Don't just read the headlines.
It's used as a way to make people feel shocked and angry over it, the media always uses that tactic, confuse people and make them feel outraged.
Technically it has legalised child pornography, but only due to a loophole in the law that needs to be updated.

I find it amazing that we have laws such as this has loopholes. We really need to create a new language because of how you can interpret the language of each law based on the lawyers view.

Johanan, I hope you're not using economy in "a lazy way".

I'll assume you're talking about America being the richest still?
Just an FYI, it's irrelevant how "Rich" a country is, if the people are in economic depression, then obviously that means they can't be able to look after their people, which ultimately means that they are too poor.


Don't forget that America has the most private companies, therefore it would obviously mean that there is a financial advantage by basing itself in America. But that's literally about it.

"If the United States collapsed the whole world would be affected.". No, it wouldn't. The result would literally be rich companies would base themselves in countries that are financially better off... and you'd still have to pay the debt.
Infact, any country collapsing won't countries with their own independent economy (United Kingdom, for one, seeing as they use the pound sterling, the EU don't control UK banks) would be aggravated but business will still carry on as usual.

In fact, the U.S. debt per person is nearly 38k (According to the economist. See link)

I could just literally say "The system we use is unsustainable, instead of the balance of boom and bust we used to have, we're eventually getting a 'boom, bust-bust, boom.', which can also mean a double dip recession"

It's going to be a global collapse. All the countries around the world borrowed money from each other, their debt stays there, the United Kingdom is suffering double dip recessions, so rather than a balanced boom and bust cycle, you get a small boom and a massive bust cycle. Therefore reaching to inevitable debt rise.

Juggernaut, I do sincerely doubt Texas being least affected, because a lot of the taxes you pay for in the US is to repay the debt that the US government got themselves into, and even if the US collapsed, you'd still have to pay off the debt, is impossible from my point of view  regardless if Texas went "Independent", also I doubt Texas has much resources to back up their worth if they decided to form their own currency. So splitting away would just make you financially poorer than before.


The main reason is the constant borrowing of money from other countries and their own banks has made their debt become unpayable, note that ontop of that you have advanced technology that lays off people from working due to technology being far more superior than human workers.


But yeah, you guys might as well demand a new system. We're using this free market system. This philosophy that we use is over 200 years old now. Clearly unsustainable and filled with permanent debt that rises.
Just like Albert Einstein said; "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Panda

You legitimately believe that I rely on 1 source of media, or media that is somehow "Anti-american" or "Anti-western" media. I am pretty sure that I mentioned (Constantly now) that I look at all forms of media, and I am far more interested in the contents of the video and not who made it.

Also, name dropping or labelling individuals / groups by someone who is considered a "Politician" or "Expert" of related fields that are discussing issues within the media does not make me believe that they are very honest or dealing with the problems, but like to name drop just so they get public support. That is not credible news or information.

Do you ever wonder why the conflict happens in the middle east? People from the middle east don't just decide to be terrorists. No. Terrorism was at it's height because our government decided to be imperialistic decided to tell them what to do and how to live. Whilst we know that isn't the case, it's all about the oil. If we really went after dictators and evil people, then I wonder how people like Mugabe is still allowed to run the country.

Can you prove to me how the sources I prevent are 'faulty'? I'd want you to give me the real reason why they are not valid as well. Don't go "Because I don't see it on television". I find that independent media sources are far more reliable than mainstream, however I never say that the mainstream media is not valid, but we both definitely know that the mainstream media filters out information that we should know.

Your last sentence just made me go "Lol what are you on about?"
The police are just as liable of causing violence, it's already proven since they show an aggressive posture (Holding weapons, holding shields and batons), that shows signs of aggression.
Not once have I heard in both mainstream media or independent media say that protesters used weapons. Not once did I hear.
SURE, I heard protesters becoming violent, but it obviously proves that the protesters did not cause violence from the start, as they have no weapons therefore they shown no tendency to be violent in the first place.

Also, no media is false. There is always the truth. Especially when there's pictures and videos involved.

Panda
I'd like it if you find a quote of me saying that. I'd like to reword it so it does not seem like I am directly going after 1 group. Since it's not my purpose, if it was, I wouldn't even bother posting here. Since I would most likely be forum banned for being a troll.

Also, there is no such thing as perfecting. It's as only good as you can get it. However we can do a far lot more in solving the problems we face today.
Also, we can help other countries, but the system we have disallows that help to happen (The money thread I mentioned, should mention that the use of technology can solve most of our problems such as poverty.).
But we can definitely solve our issues outside our country if we sort out ours, and many countries will follow through. However using war as a means to solve our differences is primitive to say the least, wars are a result from pointing fingers at one another or scarcity.
The fact is, we live in fear, but the thing is, we compare ourselves to the other countries, so we claim our government is "Ok" simply because we compare it to less developed countries, that's why we don't think further into it.
Fear is given to us through many forms, such as claiming countries harbour 'terrorists', or 'ruled by dictators and tyrants', it puts us into fear for other countries.
Now I can't go into details too much, since that does derail the point of the thread; Are we living in fear?

If we live in fear, then prejudice and hatred will manifest.


Renegade
Just a note to you, I don't just look at videos made by Anonymous and the NPR, I usually read and sometimes watch the mainstream media, which I've stated before, so it's not very nice making claims like that.
I don't see why you need to quote from Wikipedia, as I am already aware that these crimes happened, but it is somewhat irrelevant because I am talking about our country we live in. (Europe, definitely had it's bad shares, too! But their policing is usually more professional, but incidents still occur none the less.)

But this still means that our method of controlling people using non lethal weapons is still inhumane and can be considered as torture, seeing as the pain does last a long time.
We should not use weaponry that does cause so much harm. Those "non-lethal" weaponry can still kill you. If it does not, you'd be in hospital with a broken bone in your body, and you'd be under extreme agony.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lbbWAgBy7E" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lbbWAgBy7E</a>

Having your skull fractured by a non-lethal weaponry is immensely painful and can potentially kill you.
Any weapon used to incapacitate people or to "control" the protesters does nothing. It causes immense amount of pain, probably more than what a bullet does. Some cases non-lethal weaponry is useful, but using it in situations such as protests do nothing but increase violence and aggravation.