Like many of you, at least I'm guessing, I prefer PC games. Many of the ones that are specifically designed with the PC in mind tend to have deeper gameplay options and provide a better experience overall.

However, if you remember when rumble functionality came out for the N64 it was a pretty big deal. Now in 2014, PC players still don't have anything similar. Yeah, I know, nobody wants a mouse that has built-in rumble, but what about a keyboard that does? What about a vest or some other niche device that rumbles, provides hot/cold sensation, etc.? I'm aware of things like Oculus Rift, but that still only engages the senses of sight and sound as far as I'm aware.

If you're a member of the military, and have such taken an oath to do so, then you have my respect. The oath that you take is a public, official declaration of your belief that what you are doing is right.

However, outside of a circumstance such as that, someone someone laying their life down or severely decreasing their quality of life just because they don't want to "go back on their word" seems like a very dangerous mindset to have.

Hard to say what anyone would do if actually put into a situation like that. Most people would like to think that they would, at least for family and friends.

That being said, it depends. For family, I'd like to think that I would. For friends, I'm not sure I am that good of friends with anybody. I mean if they were in a very clear situation like getting attacked or something then yeah, but if they needed both of my kidneys or something to keep living then probably not. The specific situations could get very contrived but basically it is highly dependent on the situation and the person. For "my country", that is debatable. If we were actively being invaded or something, then it would most likely end up affecting myself, friends and family as well, so the answer would probably be yes. Going over to the Middle East to help break up terrorist organizations? If I really thoughtI I would make a significant difference then yeah, maybe. A war like Vietnam though? Doubtful. Regardless of what side of the fence you are on about it, the Vietcong *were* pretty nasty. Helping the South Vietnamese seemed like a somewhat noble thing to do, but I mean, how many people are willing to put themselves in a scenario where they are sacrificing their lives total and complete strangers half-way across the world? I could go over to <insert war-torn country here> and offer myself up as a sacrifice to help some random stranger over there, but in my opinion, someone so willing to jump right in and give up their life for someone they don't even know (and might end up being only slightly better off even after) doesn't seem to value their *own* life that much. If you were really dedicated to making the world a better place/whatever, I would think in the vast majority of situations that you would be able to contribute much more through an entire lifetime than a handful of daring or suicidal acts of bravery.

The only reason I can see for Gordon's SWAT team not shooting Firefly on the bridge is either/or

a) They didn't know if the explosives (which they didn't know about initially anyway) were tied to his vital signs or the detonator he had detonated them if he *released it*

b) The could not get close enough to take a shot without risking him detonating the explosives.

Still though, wouldn't you think that Gordon could have put a SWAT sniper up on a roof top far away from the bridge, or would them attempting to do that and missing a shot be just as dangerous to the hostages as physically setting foot on the bridge?

Thanks for the informative response.

Dang man, that bottom one is a crazy looking game. Your son isn't going to be able to enjoy "normal" games anymore haha

So with one monitor, if you have a smaller field of view everything looks zoomed in but your "peripheral" vision is lessened. Likewise, a higher field of view means everything looks more "zoomed out" but with more peripheral vision.

My question though is how having multiple monitors affects higher FOV. If you have 2 or even three monitors and set the field of view to 100-120 or something, does everything still look "zoomed out" or does everything look zoomed in like a low FOV on a single monitor, with the extra display width providing the enhanced peripheral vision.

Basically, would having two or three monitors allow someone to get the advantages of high FOV (wider view) without the disadvantage of things on the screen looking "zoomed out"? For a single player game I would think it more likely to just increase what you can see, but for a multiplayer game I would think it would be more likely that the wider your display is the smaller objects appear in the game world.

For me, almost all of the pay-to-play games out there seem like they would be so much more appealing if there was a way to just pay a one-time sum and get all the content at once. Having to pay for content $5 or $10 at a time is annoying to me if it is something I like. Yes you can still get all the content, sure, and even though I have never done it, it seems like doing so would cost 10 times more than just paying the standard $60.

To give an example: Marvel: Avengers Alliance. Great Facebook game, pretty much the only one I ever got into. However, I lost interest in it because for every little step along the way you could either queue up actions and wait for 10 hours or something or pay real money to speed up the process. I guess it might have made Playdom a lot of money, but for someone like me, I would have been far more interested if I could have just focused on playing the game instead of constantly hitting gameplay tolls. I'm aware that this is better for some people, but it seems to me that it would be more financially successful if more of these free-to-play games started giving you the option just to go ahead and unlock everything (at a reasonable price, not $250 or something...)

What are some games and/or series out there that seem/are specifically designed for people like 25-40?

Call of Duty: 13-17

Halo: 14-21

Elder Scrolls Skyrim: 15-25

Battlefield: console: 15-20, PC: 18-30

The Witcher: 18-25

What are some games/series that seem to specifically target people in their mid 20s or higher?

The question is not asking whether or not a game being indie makes it more or less fun, it is asking whether you typically enjoy indie games more, less or about the same as AAA titles. It's a preference question, not a question about how "hip" or "rebellious" you are. I would only expect a tool to say that being AAA or indie automatically makes them like it less just because of who made it. Yes, you could choose to not play a game because of a certain publisher or developer, but deciding you hate a game just because XYZ made it is extremely stupid.