Reply to: May's big games - Metascore! Watch Dogs and Wolfenstein!

<table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Noobie said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><p>Sony Just gave their 2016 Financial Forecast and in the game segment they say they will sell 20 million PS4. If my memory is correct only PS2 and Wii have sold 20 million or more consoles in a financial year. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So a price cut is incoming? and more games coming?</p>
<p><img src="https://i.imgsafe.org/4fcd890.jpg" alt="" width="923" height="433"></p>
<p><a href="http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/fr/20160524_sonypre.pdf">Complete financial Forecast PDF</a></p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Farsala said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><p>VR hype plus pricecut. I think they want to push VR so they will pricecut the PS4.<br>
<br>
They also expect to sell as many PS4s as smartphones, but the gaming division is expected to attain the most profit along with  Financial services.</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Nautilus said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><p>Maybe that will happen due to the bump that the Neo could give.I think thats why.</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>CosmicSex said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><p>Thats a bold prediction and what is scary is that they have usually been very conservative in relation to results.  I mean its possible of course but man thats huge. </p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>aLkaLiNE said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><p>Pretty sure all their estimates pertaining to the PS4 have deliberately been modest, and they've managed to outperform on said estimates. I'm wondering if this 20 million is again a modest estimate. What's the most a console has sold in a fiscal year that we know of?</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>TomaTito said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><p>Yesterday we finally saw live footage of that hybrid device which has been discussed to the death!<br><span style="font-family: Calibri, &quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Switch's 3min preview showed us how Nintendo's portable and home system could co-exist.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Calibri, &quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But what about the stylus?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Calibri, &quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> The device doesn't seem to have a slot for one, so I don't expect to see an S-pen equivalent built-in there.<br>Maybe they can still add an active digitizer accessory as it is <a href="http://www.slashgear.com/nvidia-shield-tablet-directstylus-2-review-29338977/">done on other tablets</a>?</span></p>
<p><img style="font-family: Calibri, &quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/Touch!_Generations_US_logo.svg/975px-Touch!_Generations_US_logo.svg.png" alt="" width="488" height="512"></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Really going to miss a few stylus games... mainly the awesome <span style="font-family: Calibri,;">Picross 3D.</span></p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Final-Fan said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>sc94597 said:<br></strong><span style="font-family: Calibri, &;">One can argue that large  vertical firms only remain healthily profitable because the workers and  lower management often ignore central management, because they have more  information on the status of the market. </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>I looked at your link but didn't see that directly discussed in the article.  Can you provide me the evidence for this claim? </p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>couchmonkey said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>“The top priority for us when we release smartphone games is to lure more new users to the Switch.” </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>I meant to comment on this last week with the introduction of the new Animal Crossing mobile game - looks like Animal Crossing for Switch in 2018?</p>
<p>Ditto comments about Koei vs. Capcom.</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>contestgamer said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Hynad said:</strong> <br>

<p>Can we ban those who make threads using those words?<br><br>Especially when the games mentioned didn't bomb at all.<br><br>To consider 5.1M a bomb... No wonder I don't post as much on game forums.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Tomb radier sold 3.4 million in 1 MONTH and the publisher was "disappointed".</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>TranceformerFX said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><p>They announced another console codename less than a year after the One X hit shelves? Man, Microsoft is all over the place... Basically they're quietly admitting that the One X has been a catastrophic failure. </p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>estebxx said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>aiwass said:</strong> <br>

<p>I ask this with the utmost sincerity and respect, because I genuinely want to know the answer: <strong>1) do you believe that your desires hold any bearing on what reality is?</strong> I find religious faith to be absolutely fascinating, seriously. I see many believers use the word "faith" like some kind of impressive mic drop moment. Religious faith is literally believing something sans any elements of known reality involved, essentially taking a shortcut to a desired belief without going through all the inconvenient and complicated groundwork that usually leads to believing something. <strong>2) Can you offer any insight or does it just end there?</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>1) No i dont, my belief in the order of things might be completely wrong.</p>
<p>2) I cant, i simply decided i wanted to believe.</p>
<table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>JWeinCom said:</strong> <br>

<p>If you don't care about truth that's certainly your right.  I don't think it's a particularly good way to go about things.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>I never said i didnt care about the truth, simply that i dont know if its true or not.</p>
<p>I cant prove to you that he exists but there is always a chance that he may exist and given that chance i want to believe, its that simple.</p>
<p>Also i see you having really long conversations on this topic and i just want to leave it clear here, look i dont wanna have some overly long disscussion about this (since honestly there isnt much for me to even add here) im not some obssesive religious person, and im not even as invested on this topic as you are (from what i can see reading this thread), what i said is really all i have to offer.</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>GhaudePhaede010 said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>LuccaCardoso1 said:</strong> <br>

<p>Can you explain it better? Why doesn't it make sense statistically?</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Upon my last deep investigation, the statistical probability of God existing is 67%.</p>
<p>https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/08/the-probability-of-god</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While this is obviously ever changing, I have no idea why anyone would think there is a stronger chance there is no God. Especially considering we are on a video game forum... ...a place which basically gives light, understanding, and reverence to the process, in a microcosm, of how God would actually work.</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Eagle367 said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>JWeinCom said:</strong> <br>

<p>I'm not making a choice.</p>
<p>I don't choose what to believe.  I evaluate the evidence I see, and I make a decision.  For example, I believe that Australia exists.  I've never been there to confirm it, but there is an abundance of evidence.  Would you say I'm choosing to believe in Australia?  On the contrary, I don't believe Narnia exists.  Again, would this be a choice, or just an evaluation?</p>
<p> Nobody has yet presented evidence to me that suggests a god is interfering with the world, so I don't believe in it.  I can't choose to believe even if I tried really hard.  At best, I could pretend to believe.  <span style="font-family: Calibri,;">I could choose to follow a religion despite not believing in it, but that would be kind of bizarre wouldn't it?  </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Can you prove to me that an nth dimension doesn't exist or does exist? Can you find evidence of another universe? No right. Hell you can't even see the entire universe only the parts whose light reaches us. So if that's so hard to observe and prove, what makes you think that you can do the same with the creator? Unless He wants it?</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>SuperRetroTurbo said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>JWeinCom said:</strong> <br>

<p> </p>
<p>I didn't assume it was a coincidence, I said this is what I see as the most likely explanation.  Slight but important distinction.  </p>
<p>How did you determine that it was not a coincidence?  And even if you don't believe it was a coincidence, how did you get to god or a soul being involved in this?</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>I didnt determine it was not coincidence.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I implied that I could not accept what I interpreted as your suggestion to be true. Slight but important distinction.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It may have been a coincidence but because of the surrounding circumstance I simply choose to believe in something more profound.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have also had a number of unexplainable experiences that lead me to believe in the supernatural.</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Eagle367 said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>JWeinCom said:</strong> <br>

<p>If there is a god who interacts with the universe, but does so in a way specifically designed to avoid detection... Then I guess I couldn't detect it.</p>
<p>But, what reason could I possibly have to believe this god exists?  How could you tell the difference between an undetectable god, and a non-existent god?  </p>
<p>I also don't believe in an nth dimension or another universe, for largely the same reasons.  Why and how would/could I believe in something that cannot be detected?</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Neutrinos couldn't be detected for a long while. Same with electrons and protons and atoms themselves. The point being we are primitive in many ways still and have a long ways to go to discover all that is within our grasp let alone every mystery there is in the universe and you can believe what you want and I can believe what I want but we both won't know until we die or won't ever know since death will be the end if you're right. In my belief this life is a test of faith .Wouldn't be much of a test if we could find evidence of God so easily when we can't even find everything in our oceans in our little world. I am strong in my belief but I'm not arrogant in it. That's the one thing I avoid. I use my little brain to make deductions and judgements as to how everything should be, hoping I am right. A Godless existence doesn't make any sense to me</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>WolfpackN64 said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>vivster said:</strong> <br>

<p>Don't worry, most of your answers in this thread were. We're used to it by now.</p>
<p>In the end what most people are arguing against is not necessarily the existence of a being that set the universe in motion but rather the portrayal of that being by major religions and the resulting massive social implications that plague us to this day.</p>
<p>I am a man of science and I will not blindly believe in a God that has no proof whatsoever. But I will never deny the possibility that some kind of being jump started the existence of the universe. Mostly because even if such a being exists that it has absolutely no meaning for human life on earth.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>JWeinCom said:</strong> <br>

<p>Seems to me your argument is basically "I defined God as necessary so he must exist".  It's pretty devoid of any actual content.</p>
<p>If you're proposing a god that interacts with this world, then at some point reality enters the picture.  Unless you're arguing for a purely metaphysical god, you can't discount non-metaphysical arguments.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Going to respond to two at once since I finally feel like I'm reaching the end of my point in the entire thread here.</p>
<p>At first, the "proof" I put forward of God's existance is revelation (can be anything from ancient to modern day revelation), even thrown in a mention of personal experiance. Since that does not suffice for most people (and I understand that) and they want arguments to justify the believe in our portrayel of God, the most paramount question is whether such a being even exists at all. Hence my repeated defense of the cosmological argument.</p>
<p>Having reached the point where the cosmological argument is doubted, but still stands, we have now come full circle to the question: "But why is this necessary being God?". The awnser is, given the argument, we know it must be God through... revelation.</p>
<p>And here we have the crux of the real Christian argument. Tradition founds itself on Rational Theology, which explains that what it has learned is God through... Tradition. Just as the Atheïst critique is Empirical towards tradition, it must lean on Skepticism against Rational Theology, and eventually ends up back at Empiricism asking for proof.</p>
<p>We are seemingly both stuck with circular reasoning. However, the astute philosopher will see we're both arguing on Coherentist lines (in which beliefs can support each other and end up circular, but this does not have to be the case) and neither has build up any conclusive arguments to knock the other off of his foundations.</p>
<p>So we are both stuck without proof, our "truth" in our definition of knowledge, but we can both have justified beliefs in our arguments, which I certainly have as I have put them forward here.</p>
<p>At this point we can recognize the matter of God's existence is a great deal more complicated then many people brashly claim or we can dig ourselves in again and return to our trench warfare.</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Peh said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>JWeinCom said:</strong> <br>

<p>I'm making it exactly as complicated as it needs to be.  A good definition has to be specific. And I'm sorry, but these matters are kind of complicated.  Sociologists actually put quite a bit of thought and effort into making good definitions. You're ignoring something I put quite a bit of thought into explaining to try and oversimplify it.</p>
<p>But to answer, no.  A baby does not believe in a god.  By your definition, that would apparently make it an atheist.  I disagree with your definition.</p>
<p>Since I answered a question, answer mine.</p>
<p>You and I want to write an academic paper about what life is like for atheists in America.  Do we talk about the 20 million or so babies in America in our paper?  Do we talk about the 71 million pigs?</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>But that's not my definition. I didn't make it. It's the definition for atheists /atheism. </p>
<p>Your academic paper is a complete different issue. Here is the thing. Atheists is usually applied to humans with a more complex thought process and awareness of its environment. Animals, plants and human babies don't belong in them, because they don't understand the question nor the concept. So, you won't get an answer out of them, ever. And thus, <strong>actually no one really cares. </strong></p>
<p>But as the definition of atheism /atheist currently is, it can be also applied to them. Simply, because they all lack the believe in any god. That's it. They fit the definition.</p>
<p>If you really want to write an academic paper then of course you start with the history of the word, the change of meaning / definitions, genetic fallacies, requirements and so on. And if I logically follow it, you will reach the moment where you test the definition on babies and pigs. But if the conclusion is: " Babies and pigs don't actively believe in any god. This also applies to a lot of adults. But one are called atheists and the others nothing while both apply to the same definition", then this results in special pleading. </p>
<p>A baby can't be a monotheists as much as they can't be a president (Despite Trump proves it otherwise). But they can be (not a theist) and (not a president.) Whereas for this first we got the word atheist which equals to (not a theist).</p>
<p>Also, the atheistic default position is a counter argument to apologist who claim that babies are theists.  </p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Peh said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table class="quote-level-2" style="width: 90%;" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>JWeinCom said:</strong> <br>

<p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: Calibri,;">1.  Why not?  I'm asking questions to clarify your position.  That's how conversation works. They're really straight forward, and you're just ignoring them. I obviously can't force you to answer them, but I think it is in rather poor form not to and shows you're not interested in an actual conversation.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Calibri,;">2. I still don't see how I have.  Can you back up this assertion?</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: Calibri,;">3. Yes. You absolutely have. And, when I make an accusation, I can actually demonstrate it.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Calibri,;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Here's you claiming a pig is an atheist.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Calibri,;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">"</span></span><span style="color: #4b4b4b; font-family: Lato, sans-serif;">So yes, I would also class a pig as an Atheist."  Look back at page 57, because quoting posts within a post is a pain in the ass on my computer.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #4b4b4b; font-family: Lato, sans-serif;">For bonus points, here is you claiming that you consider animals as atheists "</span><span style="color: #4b4b4b; font-family: Lato, sans-serif;">That I would consider an animal to be an Atheist as it </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700; color: #4b4b4b; font-family: Lato, sans-serif;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">lacks belief in the theistic position."</em></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #4b4b4b; font-family: Lato, sans-serif;">So that's twice, you're saying animals, particularly pigs, are atheists...  And I must say I'm quite amused that I'm considered absurd for pushing back on this point. And once you say animals are atheists, I think questioning whether an ant is is a very reasonable follow up.  </span></p>
<p><span style="color: #4b4b4b; font-family: Lato, sans-serif;">"</span><span style="color: #4b4b4b; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; background-color: #f3f3f3;">Anyone who doesn't hold Theistic convictions is an Atheist, it's as simple as that."</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: Lato, sans-serif; color: #4b4b4b;">Now, here you are defining atheist as anyone who doesn't hold theistic convictions.  Anyone is a term that applies to humans.  From Oxford English Dictionary: "</span></span><span style="color: #2a2a2a;">Any person or people." Dictionaries of course aren't official, but I've never heard anyone use the term anyone to apply to animals.  </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Lato, sans-serif; color: #4b4b4b;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">As I said, you claimed pigs should be counted as atheist, and then provided a definition that excludes animals.  And I just demonstrated that you've done exactly that.  So, I trust you'll acknowledge your mistake. As you have provided contradictory statements, it's entirely reasonable for me to press for clarification.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: Lato, sans-serif; color: #4b4b4b;">So, please explain to me how my statement was wrong.  Unless you're in the business of baseless assertions.  </span></span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: Lato, sans-serif; color: #4b4b4b;">4. </span></span><span style="color: #4b4b4b; font-family: Lato, sans-serif;">Uhhhhh... what?  Saying that it's false that a definition has to be specific because it needs to be logical is just ummmm... wrong.  Because logical and specific are not mutually exclusive.  And they are not even contradictory in the least.  That's like saying "the ball isn't round because it's red". </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Lato, sans-serif; color: #4b4b4b;">Why don't we ask a reputable physicist if a good definition has to be specific?  I'm willing to bet 1,000 dollars that he'll agree.  I'm not even being facetious, that's a bet I am 100% willing to make.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: Lato, sans-serif; color: #4b4b4b;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">So, it's quite simple.  It's just like the god question.  You're saying something (a definition of atheist you've provided that includes pigs, babies, and humans while excluding ants, cacti and sandwiches)  exists.  I'm saying this thing does not exists.  I honestly searched for it, and could find no evidence.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Lato, sans-serif; color: #4b4b4b;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">As you have the positive claim, you have the burden of proof.  Which should be quite easy for you to meet if your claim is true. Can you meet your burden of proof?  Because otherwise my position is justified and yours is not.</span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Did you just messed up the quote? Are you answering for Zoombael? </p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>PAOerfulone said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><p>There's no reason whatsoever why Super Mario Party CAN'T support Pro Controllers. It's just being stubborn and stupid for the sake of encouraging <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">forcing </span>players into a different <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">more uncomfortable</span> alternative.</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>EricHiggin said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>taus90 said:</strong> <br>

<p>well there are phones and power banks that have Usb C and still dont support quick charge, and of course its SONY.. but i m hopeful as its so common and cheap that it will be stupidity to leave it out </p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Well PS4 and it's SATA II and 5400RPM HDD weren't exactly bleeding edge in 2013, so. Even Pro and it's SATA III came with a 5400RPM drive.</p>
<table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Random_Matt said:</strong> <br>Only allowed partial installs, perhaps you don't even get 1TB.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>While they still have much to announce, as of right now, it almost sounds as if they want to get away from HDD's altogether. Partial game installs seems logical in general, yet they didn't do it with PS4, and I don't see why they couldn't have. PS4 with it's single 500GB launch model, could have certainly used this feature.</p>
<p>If they are going SSD only, then they almost have to be swappable, so that's not all that big a deal then. Other than the fact that if they are custom like has been mentioned already, then you'll probably have no choice but to get a larger PS branded SSD, which will cost more, most likely.</p>
<p>This could mean two launch models though. Maybe $499 for the 500GB SSD and $549 for the 1000GB SSD?</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Intrinsic said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Random_Matt said:</strong> <br>Only allowed partial installs, perhaps you don't even get 1TB.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Yup... thats not twisting the facts at all.</p>
<table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>EricHiggin said:</strong> <br>
<p></p>
<p><br>If they are going SSD only, then they almost have to be swappable, so that's not all that big a deal then. Other than the fact that if they are custom like has been mentioned already, then you'll probably have no choice but to get a larger PS branded SSD, which will cost more, most likely.While they still have much to announce, as of right now, it almost sounds as if they want to get away from HDD's altogether. Partial game installs seems logical in general, yet they didn't do it with PS4, and I don't see why they couldn't have. PS4 with it's single 500GB launch model, could have certainly used this feature.</p>
<p>This could mean two launch models though. Maybe $499 for the 500GB SSD and $549 for the 1000GB SSD?</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>And thats how misinformation spreads. Don't listen to him.</p>
<p>They aren't "only allowing partial installs"... Partial installs is an optional feature. So you don't have to wait for your whole game to install before you start playing it or even better so you don't have to keep components of a game you aren't playing anymore on your SSD. Its just more granular management. And its good considering a game will take up like 50-100GB. </p>
<p>And not a chance in hell that a 500GB SKU is an option. Especially when you consider that in 2020 a 1TB SSD will cost them about as much as they paid for a 500GB HDD in 2013.</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>thismeintiel said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>EricHiggin said:</strong> <br>

<p>Well PS4 and it's SATA II and 5400RPM HDD weren't exactly bleeding edge in 2013, so. Even Pro and it's SATA III came with a 5400RPM drive.</p>
<table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" class="quote-level-3" data-quote-level="1" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Random_Matt said:</strong> <br>Only allowed partial installs, perhaps you don't even get 1TB.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>While they still have much to announce, as of right now, it almost sounds as if they want to get away from HDD's altogether. Partial game installs seems logical in general, yet they didn't do it with PS4, and I don't see why they couldn't have. PS4 with it's single 500GB launch model, could have certainly used this feature.</p>
<p>If they are going SSD only, then they almost have to be swappable, so that's not all that big a deal then. Other than the fact that if they are custom like has been mentioned already, then you'll probably have no choice but to get a larger PS branded SSD, which will cost more, most likely.</p>
<p>This could mean two launch models though. Maybe $499 for the 500GB SSD and $549 for the 1000GB SSD?</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>You just reminded me of the Vita memory prices, Sony cannot possibly go there again.</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>drkohler said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Intrinsic said:</strong> <br>
<p>And not a chance in hell that a 500GB SKU is an option. Especially when you consider that in 2020 a 1TB SSD will cost them about as much as they paid for a 500GB HDD in 2013.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The 500G hd was/is about $22-$24. I highly doubt you'll ever get a (superfast) 500G SSD for that price, ever. With all this "save space" talk from Cerny, I still think there could be a "run of the mill" (as big as you want) hd sitting behind a relatively small (superfast) SSD (128-256GB). You would then selectively install your game key files from the hdd onto the SSD (probably no more than 2-4 games at the same time). That sounds the most economical, the SoC is already expensive enough...</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Machiavellian said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>EricHiggin said:</strong> <br>

<p>Maybe they did inform them, and maybe they didn't. It's not exactly the type of thing you would expect to see reporting or leaks on as it would just be asking to make the situation much worse by giving the Turks an advanced heads up as well. Like when Biden decided the prosecutor had to go, their allies were on board, which is fairly typical when the U.S. put's it's foot down, so it's not crazy to think America's allies just went along with it this time. On the other hand, Trump can make last minute decisions at times and just roll with it, and since he's the type of person who very well could make you pay if you don't play ball, maybe America's allies folded because they feared repercussions later on if they didn't follow suit.</p>
<p>If nobody else cares, then no other capable nation, or anyone from another capable nation should have anything to say other than the U.S. shouldn't just cut and run. If you feel for the Kurds in anyway, and have the financial or military capability to at the very least help them, then you should, otherwise it doesn't look good on you either. If you or your country aren't in a position to help, then pray away without guilt. I'm sure the Kurds wouldn't mind a few more helpful allies at a time like this.</p>
<p>The only thing I was trying to do was pose a question about which was worse. Neither looks good, which is why I posed the question the way I did.</p>
<p>Appreciate your point of view with a clear perspective on your stance about this issue, based on my initial question.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Its very evident that Turkey knew the time and moment when the US troops were pulling out since they were already mobilizing on exactly that moment.  The problem with Trump making last minute decisions that causes a massacre is something that probably should have been well thought out but as we have seen multiple times with this administration, well thought out decisions isn't one of it's strong points.  We will see how much Trump can make people pay because lately the only thing he has done is make everyone pay for his blunders.</p>
<p>As to your second paragraph, the situation still stands, are the kurds our allies or not.  This ideal you can throw blame somewhere else is a fallacy. The simple situation is that the US forces were on the ground in this area.  It was the US who made allies out of the Kurds which helped us and our President claim victory over an enemy and take all the credit.  What I feel for the Kurds is pretty simple.  If they are our allies, then we protect them like they are our allies, not stab them in the back the moment we get the opportunity.  Who cares about any other nation since it was our troops that held the ground from this event from happening.  It was a world class blunder that has cost and will cost countless lives and as an American, I see no reason to seek to share the blame or find some way to include anyone else because its very evident that none of that was done.</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Biggerboat1 said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Baalzamon said:</strong> <br>

<p>How would it mean the US directly attacked the Kurds and/or freed ISIS prisoners?</p>
<p>When the US was there, it wasn't an all out shit-storm. The moment we left (us being there was helping), all hell broke loose.</p>
<p>The US pulling out is like pulling away the initial money you borrowed in the first place. The person still needs the money they initially borrowed (The Kurds still need us present to prevent all hell from breaking loose).</p>
<p>That this isn't making sense to you is completely mind boggling to me.</p>
<p>I now understand why everybody else has /ignored you. It is literally like talking to a brick wall.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Welcome to debating with Eric. A monkey will type the works of Shakespeare before Eric manages to come up with a coherent argument.</p>
<p>His compulsion for endless irrelevant metaphors combined (quite fittingly) with his almost Trump-like self-belief in whatever nonsense he's spouting ensures that any time spent debating him is time forever lost...</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>DonFerrari said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>EricHiggin said:</strong> <br>

<p>I thought it was that it would have the fastest SSD, compared to a PC equivalent in price to the PS5. So how fast is the SSD in a $500 PC generally? The PS5 will be faster than that, but won't make it the fastest SSD on the market by late 2020. It may however be faster than anticipated, due to it's customization and integration into the console.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Nope. He didn't say compared to equivalent PC. He just said available to PC. Because you could either make a barebone PC with only the SSD being good, or other components being good and throwing a very old HDD on it, both could cost 500 so it would be pointless comparison.</p>
<table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Lafiel said:</strong> <br>

<p>aren't you being a bit disingenuous yourself here?</p>
<p>Unless I missed a more recent comment, Cerny said it was better than anything in current PCs when PCI-E 4.0 wasn't released. And an Epyc CPU is not something for "PCs" (_personal_ computers), it's server hardware. The kind of raids you describe are extremely unlikely to be used for personal/private use.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>I would like to know what would be the reasonable limit of what was available to PC at the time. Because I can sulk up Mark being hyperbolic or a little disingenuous/not transparent, but a flat ou lie on the like of saying they will have a SSD faster than what is available to PC but meaning "faster than HDD" doesn't make much sense. We can throw all hell to Ken Kutaragi on PS3, but he wasn't lying when he touted Cell capabilities versus other chips, it just didn't matter as much as the numbers suggested.</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Bofferbrauer2 said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>EricHiggin said:</strong> <br>

<p>KKK - Clearly not a fan of the blacks, wants to keep them enslaved.</p>
<p>EU - Clearly not a fan of the b...s , wants to keep them ........</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>True, the EU is not a fan of such BS and rather follows facts than rhetorics. </p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Immersiveunreality said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>melbye said:</strong> <br>Never managed to make games as good as the best Nintendo-games though</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>I would dare to say they do that but Nintendo delivers better accessibility by making their games suitable for young and older gamers.</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong> said:</strong><br /></td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Dante9 said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Hiku said:</strong> <br>

<p>I think since Nathan is the type of character that comes out of conflicts with entire armies alive, I don't really think about how much his battles make sense any more.<br>Though I think with Nadine they were presenting him with the challenge of a martial arts expert, which to my recollection Nate hasn't dealt with before. He usually solves his problems with guns. So when facing someone excelling at hand to hand combat, Nate is like a fish out of the water. <br>It reminded me a bit of how James Bond started getting beat up in humiliating ways by Jaws, after always looking like the cool guy before that.<br><br><iframe width="560" height="314" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/CogCFACcNPc"></iframe></p>
<p>And I think it can be charming to see our heroes fall flat on their butt a few times.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The thing is that martial arts are really not that effective in real life confrontations, this has been put to the test in recent years especially. On top of that, it is one woman against two men who are not strangers to physical challenges themselves. This was a clear statement and it tastes like the crap that it is. For me, it was just a little blemish in a great game, nothing major but totally unnecessary. Also, they just might have pulled their punches a little because she was a woman, imagine the uproar if they actually kicked the shit out of a woman.. Interesting how this whole equality thing works.</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Dante9 said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>DonFerrari said:</strong> <br>

<p>You are questioning John hating the story, I have done some convo with him and it have about 0 to do with what you think. You are just making straw man and dishing out personal attacks based on your own assumptions of why they don't like, while you yourself doesn't like. If we were to do like you we could say you don't like Naughty Dog games because they featured white males until now and you defend TLOU2 because it feature females, probably I would be wrong by over a country mile, but that is exactly the type of argument you are using.</p>
<p>There is no denying that ND is going for a progressive agenda, key people in the company already confirmed it. The point is have it ruined their work? For majority it doesn't seem like it, but some people don't like where they are taking the studio.</p>
<p>And since you don't like the original and didn't play the second, so your understanding of the IP is likely much smaller than the ones that are showing why they don't like what was done, yet you are acting like you know better than then not only about the game but also about what is going inside their mind.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Why are the people who have no attachment to the first game even speaking on this? They don't seem to be able to relate to why people loved Joel and why the sequel seems bad to them. Just defending the agenda, no matter what.</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>Dante9 said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>EricHiggin said:</strong> <br>

<p>Situations like these are actually hurting the cause just as much if not more than it would otherwise. One of the biggest problems is the idea of taking something that is well known and popular, dismantling it, and building something considerably different from it. People hate change in general, and they hate it even more the faster it happens, which tends to lead to significant backlash.</p>
<p>The reason this approach is taken in the first place, is because it's extremely difficult to start something fresh and original and turn it into something widely popular, or at the very least takes a considerable amount of time to come to fruition. Not to mention, considering the agenda's and narrative's they wish to portray in these cases, it's likely to take even longer because of what type and how much change is being asked of people.</p>
<p>I mean just look at vehicles for example as something simple and not all that personal. The more recent Dodge Dart did not do well and was discontinued quickly because if you knew what the old Dodge Dart was and what it stood for, you didn't want anything to do with the new one. That car got a lot of backlash and had a lot of negativity towards it. It's the same reason why the more recent Dodge Challenger is accepted and does reasonably well, because it's a fairly minor deviation from what it once was.</p>
<p>Trying to take things like Star Wars or TLOU and turn them into something they weren't, especially in the way it's been done, is way too much change to quickly. People are not only being pushed to hard to fast, or somewhere they just won't go period, but at the same time, to them, something they love or hold dear is being ruined. To some it even seems like they're almost being given an ultimatum. Change quickly and agree or what you enjoy will be torn down. This approach isn't exactly working out they way it was meant to, unless of course tearing everything down is actually part of the agenda.</p>
<p>In today's world, while tech may change and advance quickly in just a few years time, people do not change at that same pace. Not even close. Younger generations have a harder time understanding this though and are under the impression that personal changes to people's thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, should change just as quickly. The older you get, the more set in your ways you become, which is tough to understand when you're younger and more malleable.</p>
<p>While I don't have the exact answer if there is one, it's been one step forward, two steps back for quite a while now, so if they actually want to make positive forward progress, they've got to either find another way, or just let off the gas for a while and coast and see where that get's them. People are way more open to a Sunday drive vs jumping into a race car at the track. ND should have at the very least, saved some of this story narrative for Part III. It would have been more palatable for everyone all around and presumably wouldn't have received near as much backlash.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Yeah. Look, take any other game or movie that people loved because of the dynamics of the two main characters and their journey together. Bad Boys with Will Smith and Martin Lawrence comes to mind off the top of my head(yeah, it's ancient because I'm ancient, I know, although the third movie came out this year). Imagine people waiting for 7 years to get that second movie and then suddenly Mike or Marcus is brutally killed like 10 minutes into the film. Then the killer takes over the movie and never faces real consequences of what he has done. What the hell is that? The heart of the thing would have been destroyed and you would expect people to just love it and applaud the bold new direction? Well, apparently some people would. I mean, I accept now that Druckmann simply wanted to do something unexpected and controversial and that's his right of course. I just didn't find it appealing and I'm not alone.</p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>crissindahouse said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-2" data-quote-level="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Bofferbrauer2 said:</strong><br>

<p>The gall they have for such an accusation while they didn't respect another country's territorial integrity and invaded it outright...</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>And they even attack from another country (Belarus) and use "modern" weapons from Iran and all of that not only in the areas they claim as their territory but also even in the West of Ukraine where almost no Russians live. But sure, NATO isn't respecting territorial integrity. </p>
<p>Now they threaten Israel that helping Ukraine would destroy ties with Moscow. To me that sounds like "damn if Israel will send air defense we are fucked so let's blackmail them as well"</p>
<p>It would be so awesome if Poland would just say "let's go in" and place some troops in Ukraine to the border of Belarus. They just have to use the same argument Belarus uses as why Russia's troops are in Belarus. Poland won't do it but they would be damn heroes. Just defend what could possibly come from Belarus. Hard for Belarus to complain if they let Russia in their country.  </p> </body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p><table style="width: 90%; margin-top: 10px;" border="0" class="quote-level-1" data-quote-level="1"><tr><td><strong>NintendoMan said:</strong><br /><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><body><p>Rocky - Weird Al</p></body></html>
</td></tr></table><p></p>

Original Message (newest first):

hinch

Currently Offline

26,327

5637 posts since 01/03/13

Recent Badges:

A Free Man Managed to avoid being banned for 2 years.
7 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 7 years.
Open For Business Earned 10 badges.
Escape Artist Managed to avoid being banned for 1 month.
4 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 4 years.
So You Came Back For More, Huh? Logged in a second time.

hinch on 28 May 2014

starcraft said:
Watch Dogs 82

Wolfenstein 78

I was bang on for Wolfie but overestimate WD!

Nice one. I almost hit my target as well. One out from guessing both Metascores o_O

Tbh though.. I'm actually surprised that Wolfenstein even managed that for a mid-tier title. Would've the reviewers would rip that game a new one.

Around the Network

starcraft

Currently Offline

95,610

14129 posts since 17/06/07

Recent Badges:

Breaking Out Managed to avoid being banned for 1 year.
Marshall Law Dealt with (accepted or rejected) 100 reports.
I'm Special VGChartz staff member.
Some Here, Some There Bank a Total of 5,000 VG$.
So You Came Back For More, Huh? Logged in a second time.
15 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 15 years.

starcraft on 27 May 2014

Watch Dogs 82

Wolfenstein 78

I was bang on for Wolfie but overestimate WD!

starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Mensrea

Currently Offline

8,855

1285 posts since 11/09/10

Recent Badges:

Leaving Limbo 100 posts on the gamrConnect forums.
11 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 11 years.
Congratulations on Pressing Start! Score your first game in your collection.
4 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 4 years.
7 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 7 years.
'Ello Princess! Awarded for signing up.

Currently Playing:

The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap (GBA)
Far Cry 3 (PS3)
ZombiU (WiiU)

Mensrea on 15 May 2014

Um why isn't Mario Kart 8 up there?

Metallox

Currently Offline

16,099

4437 posts since 03/02/14

Recent Badges:

7 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 7 years.
Littlest Genocide 1,000 posts on the gamrConnect forums.
First Rung Of The Ladder Earned 10,000 gamrPoints
Vice Free Managed to avoid being banned for 6 months.
Breaking Out Managed to avoid being banned for 1 year.
Ride Into the Sunset Managed to avoid being banned for 3 months.

Currently Playing:

Homeworld (PC)
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (PC)
Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings (PC)
Age of Empires II: The Conquerors (PC)

Metallox on 15 May 2014

MK8 has a Metascore of 88 and I think it will stay there... I don't think Watch Dogs will surpass that and I highly doubt that Wolfstein is doing more than 80.

My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first.

starcraft

Currently Offline

95,610

14129 posts since 17/06/07

Recent Badges:

Making Progress Earned 50,000 gamrPoints
8 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 8 years.
12 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 12 years.
7 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 7 years.
Breaking Out Managed to avoid being banned for 1 year.
Pon Received 100 wall post comments on gamrConnect.

starcraft on 15 May 2014

FYI!

Apparently Wolfenstein has Day 1 patches of between 5-7GB for both X1 and PS4 that are COMPULSORY!

Edit: There now appears to be some confusion around whether these patches are compulsory or not!

starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network

starcraft

Currently Offline

95,610

14129 posts since 17/06/07

Recent Badges:

One Small 'Splosion Author of 100 forum threads.
1st Birthday Has been a VGChartz member for over 1 year.
Vice Free Managed to avoid being banned for 6 months.
'Ello Princess! Awarded for signing up.
4 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 4 years.
Mighty Heart Logged in on Valentine's Day.

starcraft on 14 May 2014

superchunk said:

fatslob-:O said:

superchunk said:
MK8 = 90s
WD = 80s
wolf = i have no fucking clue.

Seriously can't believe you purposefully ignored the largest game launching May.

We'll see ... If watch dogs manages to sell better than MK8 you can't claim it to be the largest game of May.

WD is release on multiple consoles that total a FAR larger userbase. If it doesn't out do MK8 collectively, then that's insane. However, if you compare it as a % of the userbase or its raw sales on any single platform... then you have a challenge.

I suspect Mario Kart would win easily in that regard!

starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

superchunk

Currently Offline

128,095

23171 posts since 20/12/06

Recent Badges:

Killer Scorpion Earned 60 badges.
15 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 15 years.
Seriously... Bank a Total of 10,000 VG$
15 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 15 years.
Open For Business Earned 10 badges.
Brotherhood 100 friends on gamrConnect.

superchunk on 14 May 2014

fatslob-:O said:

superchunk said:
MK8 = 90s
WD = 80s
wolf = i have no fucking clue.

Seriously can't believe you purposefully ignored the largest game launching May.

We'll see ... If watch dogs manages to sell better than MK8 you can't claim it to be the largest game of May.

Dante_6667

Currently Offline

16 posts since 22/02/14

Recent Badges:

6 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 6 years.
8 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 8 years.
'Ello Princess! Awarded for signing up.
2 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 2 years.
Site Veteran Has been a VGChartz member for over 5 years.
1st Birthday Has been a VGChartz member for over 1 year.

Dante_6667 on 14 May 2014

Watchdogs - 83

Wolfenstein - 65

fatslob-:O

Banned

38,498

11391 posts since 15/09/13

Recent Badges:

Harvest Time Logged in at the start of Spring.
50 in One Add a total of 50 games to your collection.
The Nuts & Bolts Add a total of 25 games to your collection.
Don't Forget To Save 10 status updates.
Spreading the Disease Score a total of 50 games in your collection.
One Piece at a Time Add your first game to your collection.

Currently Playing:

.hack//Mutation Part 2 (PS2)
Xenoblade Chronicles (Wii)

fatslob-:O on 14 May 2014

superchunk said:
MK8 = 90s
WD = 80s
wolf = i have no fucking clue.

Seriously can't believe you purposefully ignored the largest game launching May.

We'll see ... If watch dogs manages to sell better than MK8 you can't claim it to be the largest game of May.

superchunk

Currently Offline

128,095

23171 posts since 20/12/06

Recent Badges:

Killer Scorpion Earned 60 badges.
15 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 15 years.
Seriously... Bank a Total of 10,000 VG$
11 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 11 years.
15 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 15 years.
Trust Me, It'll Have Legs 100 replies made to user's most popular thread.

superchunk on 14 May 2014

MK8 = 90s
WD = 80s
wolf = i have no fucking clue.

Seriously can't believe you purposefully ignored the largest game launching May.

Existing User Log In

New User Registration