[QUOTE="Buff-McBlumpkin"]

Thaty attitude doesn't fly in this forum, unfortunately.

You're basing your "competition is good" notion on the assumption that the primary concern of this place's membership is the quality of games. That isn't the case..... if the primary concern of this forum's membership was playing great games than fanboyism would simply not exist - one would want to play great games from every platform (the death of the fanboy.) People here want to be on a "winning" team, they automatically discount a huge number of excellent games because they're not available on their platforms of choice. If they cared about great games above all else this wouldn't be the case. What you say is logical but you're completely ignoring the fact that the premise of this forum is completely illogical.

Wasdie

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.... and the dogs on this board are old and retarded.

Thaty attitude doesn't fly in this forum, unfortunately.

You're basing your "competition is good" notion on the assumption that the primary concern of this place's membership is the quality of games. That isn't the case..... if the primary concern of this forum's membership was playing great games than fanboyism would simply not exist - one would want to play great games from every platform (the death of the fanboy.) People here want to be on a "winning" team, they automatically discount a huge number of excellent games because they're not available on their platforms of choice. If they cared about great games above all else this wouldn't be the case. What you say is logical but you're completely ignoring the fact that the premise of this forum is completely illogical.

You forget that Home is exactly what the PS3 needs to be complete. Never once did Sony market it as a total gaming machine, they have always marketed it as a home entertainment console. This only further helps that claim. This bring the community to this system where we can share all of our media in a fully interactive world with millions of other people.

Home was the missing chunk to the PS3.
Wasdie

To me there is still a huge missing chunk in PSN.

The most important thing they needed to fix was the friends list issues (the ease at which one can invite friends to play in games or rounds,) the ease of in-game messaging, and the lobby nonsense. Sony needs to construct a unified solution to these problems rather than leaving it up to the devs on a game by game basis (history has proven if this happens it simply won't get done 90% of the time.) The heart of a good online gaming service is the ease it allows you to play with other people..... friends and what have you.

3D trophies and a free copy of the SIMS is nice..... but the most important things to fix with PSN are the problems that hinder it as a online gaming match-up service.

NES. As a kid I didn't own a Master System.... it just wasn't nearly as well-known back then. EDIT: I'm from the US.

Although.... when I got a Genny it blew away my NES.

Sword.
Sure, anyone can swing a sword. But ever watch fencers?  Or people who really know how to use swords?  It's like an art form.  Guns aren't.
Account_27

Friggin' please.

Those of you commenting this way on guns have never used them or understand the amount of skill involved.

At the range I would absolutely humiliate you.

I'm sticking with my statement, as far as being a valid military asset, the sword requires much more training. bobwill1

Out of pure curiosity... what experience do you have with firearms (as in "have used," not as in "have seen on TV")?

This is actually the only time I think I've ever agreed with KeyWii.

I think I nodded off at least 18 times when he was talking endlessly in the beginning, and the second half of the interview where the game was actually played and that dog ran around for 456 minutes was unimpressive from a technical standpoint.

Terrible presentation.

Delta Force or SAS.

[QUOTE="Buff-McBlumpkin"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Buff-McBlumpkin"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]The recoil on most guns is not nearly as much as people expect.quiglythegreat

I've taken more than 20 people shooting and I've always observed the opposite.

The first thing they're shocked by is the sound. Even when wearing ears most people cannot believe how deafening the higher caliber (357 mag, .45, .44 mag, etc.) handguns and even regular rifles (.308, .223) makes. The second surprise is the amount of recoil..... most people who haven't used firearms expect little to no recoil - like that of a .22. This is because they're so used to seeing guns in movies (guns in movies have ZERO recoil because they don't actually fire bullets, the complete opposite is true for live ammo) with no recoil and toyish "pop" sounds. I've had people nearly fall backwards shooting a Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum because they were so unaware of the impending recoil.

I don't even know what you're saying. Your last post you said people expect more recoil than they actually receive the first time the fire a handgun but the opposite true. I worked in a range for over 5 years and have been shooting my entire life. People are so used to the Hollywood notion of how a gun works they're often overwhelmed by the recoil produced by larger calibers and extremely startled by the noise even when wearing ears.

What calibers are you referring to here? What guns do you have experience with?

Not 12 caliber, 12 gauge. Caliber has nothing to do with the variety of powder but rather the diameter of a bullet (the piece of metal that is discharged from the cartridge and exists the barrel) in hundredths of an inch. Shotguns use shells, not bullets..... so guage is most commonly used instead. They fire buckhot/birdshot/slugs.etc. There is a .410 baliber shotgun..... but that thing is friggin' weak. Less than a 16 guage I believe. And a 12 gauge shotgun certainly has quite a bit of recoil, way more than one would expect.

I also doubt you were using black powder. Most you fire today use smokeless.

[QUOTE="Buff-McBlumpkin"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]The recoil on most guns is not nearly as much as people expect.leegar88

I've taken more than 20 people shooting and I've always observed the opposite.

The first thing they're shocked by is the sound. Even when wearing ears most people cannot believe how deafening the higher caliber (357 mag, .45, .44 mag, etc.) handguns and even regular rifles (.308, .223) makes. The second surprise is the amount of recoil..... most people who haven't used firearms expect little to no recoil - like that of a .22. This is because they're so used to seeing guns in movies (guns in movies have ZERO recoil because they don't actually fire bullets, the complete opposite is true for live ammo) with no recoil and toyish "pop" sounds. I've had people nearly fall backwards shooting a Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum because they were so unaware of the impending recoil.  

That reminds me of the first time I shot an UZI. I didn't think the recoil would be to bad but when I shot it I couldn't keep it straight and my ears started hurting. Also when I stopped shooting my hands couldn't stop shaking. 

Yep, that's a common reaction when people fire their first full auto assault rifle (in my state ranges rent them out for use in range for people who want to experience the novelty,) or in your case a submachine gun.

The repeated recoil will really push you back, that's why you have to lean into your stance when you're using a fully automatic rifle..