Competition is always a good thing. The reason we are seeing such amazing games is because of the intense competition between Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo has kinda been doing their own thing for a while now, so I would hardly call them a compeditor.

Had Microsoft not entered the console war, Sony would have monopolized videogame consoles by now, and we would all be forced to play Lair on the PS3.

I just made a game in Java that you beat as soon as you open the program. My game wins the shortest game ever reward.

Program's code:

-

public class ShortestGameEver

{

public static void main(String[] args)

{

System.out.println ("Congratulations! You have just beaten the shortest game ever!");

}

}

As long as it was the code guys and not the creative guys it wont have much effect.cakeorrdeath

I have a feeling the 4-hour update on sept 10th is their preperation for halo 3 and online and the bungie sharing system

bamafan1434

About PS3 games flopping so many and some so hard, I have a theory.

As PS3 is a $600 bucks console, people need to see their money spent for a good reason. If you have a 500$ console and a 600$ console which have basically THE SAME LOOKS (except for some gigs who say there are RADICAL differences) then we have a clear looser. In order to avoid that, graphics for PS3 have to be pushed more than normally, which takes timeand money from developers. You have to add, from a developers´ point of view that you are working with "experimental technology". On top of having to deal with pressure of graphics, new tech, there is also competition. You may want to do a great game but companies can´t do a game every 5 years, so they must hasten their processes, with the drawback of quality.

What you get at the end is a game which is rushed;with a lot of graph development, at the cost of fun; and done with tools which are rarely known.

curono

1) The console itself is too expensive

2) The games aren't worth the money.

Another HTML error...CptJSparrow

Then when I continued reading your response, I treaded from the sublime into the rediculous...

in some instances sped up by us due to the use of insecticides, for example. We are philosophically in disagreement... I can see that a world without mankind may be "better" due to global warming, but this is the world we have, a world that we have developed in and must live or die with. In a sense, it still is pure, for we are a product of it just as any other animal.

Oh please dear G-d, don't believe everything you hear or read. What if Global Warming was a political ruse, used to scare uninformed voters into voting for the biggest blowhard... the biggest schmendrick who says the world is coming to an end.? Insectisides? Simply from an epidemiological standpoint, the non-usage of insectasides is the reason for viruses, such as the West Nile Virus toproliferate.

I'm done debating with you. I'm not going to be able to change anyone's mind, especially over the internet. I will just end by saying that social 'liberalism' is a dance of death for any society, and economic neoconservativism is a way for man to justify their own inhumanities to other men. I am against libertarians, and while I'm a political moderate, they're the ones I disagree with the most.

(Some random HTML error, so I had to delete the quote)CptJSparrow

Only if we could let nature take it's course and allow for 'natural selection' to take place. The fact of the matter is, mankind is the corrupting factor that is not allowing for natural selection to occur properly. We are in some ways, increasing the rate of evolution in some species on earth, while slowing down the rate (if not stopping entirely) for others. Natural selection and theories of Darwin can only apply to apure world... a world without mankind.

What's even worse, and less human is when people start applying natural selection to human beings. Every modern human is a part of civilization-- a manmade organization, and thus civilization has all the flaws of man. Only the people I described above would even imagine applying such laws to another man... the cold-hearted, self-centered, materialistic, narcisistic human being.

-

To answer your second question: That is a failure of interpreting the moral codes implied. Anyone who uses morals as a weapon, is immoral themselves, and should probably try living up to their own high standards.

-

In reaction to your third and final response: We have a responsibility as a member of society to give the next generation the same opportunity we had. I would say that our parent's (I'm 20 years old) generation failed at this, and we are taking it a step further. In this collapsed, debased society, it is hard to trust anyone... it is hard to know who your real friends are.

"There is one thing in common with everyone in support of abotion: They are allalready living, and any possibility ofthem being aborted has already passed"

:lol: ........duh!

people not supporting abortion must be zombies :lol:

it is impossible that emotional hurt is worse than physical hurt?
if you say yes then you are wrong.dead wrong.

guitboxdude25

They are only emotionally hurt because they cannot undo what they shouldn't have done in the first place.