As someone who watches wrestling weekly, this is interesting, but in the long run, the best thing to come out of this should be nothing. I really hope they dont shift storylines or change his character to promote that he is gay. I feel like the best way for them to handle this is to let him keep his current character (which serves a purpose and he seems comfortable in).

I find it kind of nice he's willing to admit it, seeing as the perception is that wrestling is filled with backwards, chauvanistic, homophobic fans/ management. This is kind of interesting too since not too long ago, the face of the company was cracking implied gay jokes, but he has openly endorsed darren young.

Cool announcement anyway. I dont imagine people outside of wrestling really caring though since he's such a small name wrestler.

I don't mind LoL having a huge playerbase. I just don't understand people's loyalty to this particular game. I like to play and try a wide variety of games. The game only has a few maps. How can people be so loyal to the game for years?

Falconoffury

it's the same reason people are able to play the same sport for years. To them, it's mostly about the competition. The fact that there is a pro scene and a huge following means that it's a viable way to compete in something you like, with new characters being released every once in a while and patches that change up which characters are viable sometimes keep the game fresh for the hardcore fans. There are also ranks and seasons keeping track of progress. I personally play it casually now, but I can see why people love it.

And once you've invested so much time into a game, its hard to go to move on, especially when the competitor (in this case Lol vs DOTA2) are quite different in many ways except for the base structure of the map. The learning curve is also large, so its hard to jump ship.

I've spent so much money on games i dont play and then so little money on games I do. In the end, i just like to think of how much time i spent and how fun it was. I dont have an actual equation, but if i can remember good things about the game more than I can remember bad things about it, i'd generally say it was money well spent.

Good games usually leave me with certain moments that i remember. Like when i think of the game, one particular instance always pops up, followed by more. Doesnt usually happen for me when it comes to games  i dont like cause i usually drop them like flies. Why waste my time on something i dont think ill enjoy? even if i spent money on it already, i dont need to spend even more time.

sega genesis (i know i had one but i dont remember playing it much, i know i liked it though)- 6

snes-8

n64- 10

gamecube - 9

wii - 8

ds - 7

3ds- 6 (also an ongoing one, so i expect this number to rise)

wiiu- 6 (does this count? it's only been out for less than a year. will definitely rise unless mario kart and super smash are disasters)

psone- 6

ps2- 4

ps3- 6

xbox - 2

xbox 360- 7.5

games were in general more fun when i was a kid, probably because i played with more people

I voted for the second one, but I have a wii U and a gaming pc. I think i'm good for now, since i've learned over the last gen that main console games either do not interest me or are available on the pc for the most part. I'd like to pick up a ps4 or xboxone at some point, but if this gen was any indicator of things to come, they'll be pretty useless for me.

Not everybody can afford a gaming pc that can run the emulator at full settings and be fully 100 percent emulated. There are still definite problems with the emulator, some of the problems coming from sound emulation. I have a kickass gaming pc (or at least, pretty good) and I cant run tales of symphonia with full audio integrity at full framerates with max settings.

I never got why buying remakes/ sequels that are "too similar" is bad. If you want the content and are willing to pay the price, why the hell not? If you havent played the game before (or enjoyed it and want an updated copy), there is nothing wrong with buying it. Who cares how much effort or money or time goes into it by the developers? There are plenty of expensive games that come out with less content. There are plenty of indy games that took less time to develop and less money to make that come out for only half the price of a multimillion blockbuster. People should be buying their games based on their interest and the merit of the game. You guys are acting like people are handing out money and getting nothing in return.

Lots of shows force them in and many more portray them as weird or "fabulous." I'm sorry but most gays you would not be able to pick out in a crowd. I don't know why shows try to make these gay characters stand out so much from every other normal acting character in the show. ferrari2001

I feel like these shows might be trying to get some sort of anti-bullying message out or have a "serious" episode. It seems like most of the shows that do gay characters as flamboyant weirdos are comedies since its easier to do comedy with stereotypes. But, they want to throw out a serious episode to show that making fun of gay people is not good, and they might think it's easier to throw in someone who fits the gay stereotype so that its obvious they are being bullied for being gay.

i think if a show had a completely normal person that was gay get bullied for being gay, it might resound more with the audience, cause then it'd be like "hey, he's just like me." But, on the other hand, that character might not be as "funny" or "likeable" in non-serious episodes.

I think there have been episodes of law and order that have gay bad guys. It's been a while since i've watched the show, but im pretty sure there were. I feel like Law and Order SVU does gay people pretty well (with one of their main recurring characters being gay and not a stereotype). usually, being gay isn't their character, they are characters that just happen to be gay.

I thought the gay character from this season's dexter (or last seasons, i dont remember anymore) was pretty good. The killer from the Brotherhood. He was a bad man, but a respectable character.

Omar from the wire was also a very good gay character. I think Vito from the Sopranos was also done pretty well, though i feel like he became to big of a character in a show that really isn't about him, but nonetheless, he was an interesting character.

a true sequel seems almost impossible since wei was SPOILER NOT WORKING BUT I THINK MOST PEOPLE WHO PLAYED IT KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT

However, i'd totally be for a spiritual sequel set in japan, other parts of china, Italy, Russia or the US (but hopefully not new york though if done well i wouldnt really mind).

I love sleeping dogs as the mix between GTA4 and Saints Row the third (both games i think are amazing). It has miles better combat than both though weaker gunplay, with a story that is not as interesting as either but perfectly fine. It isnt as "sim" as gta (though not really sim, still one of the more "realistic" sanbox games) and it isnt as zany as saints row the third. I'd love a sequel/ spinoff to be the same balance between GTA5 and Saints Row IV

So I just finished watching the sopranos for the first time (before James Gandolfini's death). It took me 2 1/2 months to complete all 86 hours and it was a helluva ride.

I honestly don't know what to say with that ending. Look, it has been debating and debating for years. Tony sopranos dies. He gets killed the moment he looks meadow walking into the restaurant. I believe it was the most beautiful ending to a series but even that I don't feel complete.

It's like the Mass effect ending, it just keeps on bothering me even though it was genius play from the writers.
I think what hurts me the most is the fact to actually acknowledge the death of tony soprano of 7 years (although my journey as only been 9 weeks).

The building to that final scene was lacking I think, the didint build enough matter into that final scene. All I have been doing now is just thinking about that final scene and imaging the soprano family crying over Tony's death.

What do you guys think, and want to share. I could use a little dose

shairoo11

I feel like it was a fitting end for a mob boss. Personally, i liked Tony. he was such a relatable guy for a psychopathic, power hungry and selfish monster. His character is one of my favorites from anything i've ever watched or read. I feel like the ending, though it saddens me, makes sense. Tony wasn't above his life style, and people in his life get killed. He was everything that was wrong with the mob life and he got a typical mobster death. Phil died with no fanfare either and he was a pretty major character too. I think the point was that Tony was just another man who was part of the system. once you're seen as weak or incapable, you're gone, and that was his fate. I think one of the points is that there is no glory in dieing a "flashy" death and it's just part of every day life for Tony, who has ordered and killed multiple people.