@caj1986: If @maralzo got you all worked up, then I'd say he did exactly what he set out to do.

@ryuburger: That very much depends on the game. If you're talking online shooters, then how fast it runs is absolutely critical. RPGs, not so much. But why am I explaining that to you when you already know everything?

I can never forget the music in the commercial on the TV in Simlish:

"Zha.....Ba.....DA!"

"Zha Ba Da Dah Dee Dahhhh."

"Zha Ba Doo Bee Zha Ba Doo Bee Shmaaaaaahhhhhh!"

I couldn't tell you what I had for breakfast but I remember that part.

@dzimm: Can't afford $20 a year? Maybe it's time for a new hobby.

I remember my fiancee gave me this for valentines day. What a mistake that was! She fell asleep in the recliner while my college roommate and I played the game for 4 straight hours. :)

No dice, um, DICE.

While I do agree that technology is ever evolving, ultimately leading into something completely unbelievable (imagine telling someone from 100 years ago you could heat up your lunch in two and half minutes with a thing called a microwave oven). But at the same time, especially as a mechanical engineer myself, it was the mechanization of Tony's suit that I loved so much, watching all the pieces slowly coming together. Although IM2 was not one of the better movies, I love watching him put on the briefcase suit.

I feel the same way about the Transformers movies. The movies themselves were okay, but the transformations in the first film were a work of art (I still get goosebumps when Sam Witwicky meets Optimus for the first time and sees his 30 second transformation process). Then when the movie came out with the guy that I guess is supposed to be steve jobs and invents transformers that could simply disassemble into little cubes and those cubes could fly a short distance then reassemble into a robot. It lost everything that was good about the idea of Transformers.

As someone else once said below, this is how an opinion piece should be written, unlike the Matrix article we got a few days ago. Well done Mr. Wong.

Some of the points I definitely agree with. Some I do not, but that’s a matter of opinion. What disappoints me is that the author just watched all three movies in a row and claims to understand them when he doesn’t seem to at all.

For example, in the first movie, Morpheus tells Neo that he’s special because he will eventually be able to break the rules of the Matrix, whereas the Agents have to operate within the rules of the Matrix (which was set up to be the rules of the real world), such as physics. The Agents were super fast and super strong, but that was still within the rules. Neo was above that, which is why he could fly and no one else could. That's why the agents could bleed.

And Neo didn’t “delete” Smith as the author oversimplifies and misses the point entirely (the point being that Neo finally realizes he has to sacrifice himself because he can't physically defeat Smith). In the first movie, it was explained that The One (Neo) was the term in an equation that balances the existence of Smith. It was until Smith overwrote Neo by copying himself that the equation become unbalanced and the Matrix had to correct itself. It’s simple math.

I think the critique of the 2 sequels is harsh because the Wachowski brothers didn't make the movies to be good standalones. If you had the time (and the bladder) to treat the 3 movies as a 6+ hour single movie, it would absolutely work.

As I was scrolling through the feed, I thought the still image from the video above was a picture of a woman with zebra print yoga pants and a giant face where her repro bits should be. Looking more closely, it makes more sense now.

@videogameninja: naaaah naaaah nah nah naaaaaaaah, nanananananana, nah nah naaaaah.