Family Guy used to be pretty hilarious, but the show has really gone down the can recently. The last 25 episodes have had about as many laughs combined as the first 5 episodes combined.

I cannot stand mainstream American humour, but the bizzare and unpredictable humour of FG really appeals to me. But, yeah, the show's gone downhill.

[QUOTE="mfsa"]

I'm talking about how Call of Duty 4 is Call of Duty 2 wearing a different coloured shirt.

I'm all for more-of-the-same when the game is great, but it just didn't work for me with CoD4. Nothing new was added (for the single player game) at all. Exactly the same experience, only generally less exciting.

Baranga

Actually it's more cinematic, COD2 had a lot of filler missions.

Well, while the presence of filler is arguably not a good thing, its absense is arguably not a good thing either - not when the standard of gameplay is high, as it was in CoD2. I didn't find CoD4 more cinematic, myself. And I found the missions in CoD2 consistently excellent. I wouldn't call any of it filler.

I replayed COD2 last month... It was my 2nd playthrough, and I still can't finish it. Normandy sucks. The Soviet campaign is awesome, the African one is... ok, and Normandy blows really hard.Baranga

A similar thing happened to me with CoD4. I got about half way in and just... stopped playing it. I did not have the will to continue. I ended up forcing myself to finish it a few weeks later just to get it off my hard disk. CoD2, on the other hand, I finished in one weekend.

I can't believe you don't like the SAS missions, or the flashback ones. I thought those were better than the whole COD2. The pacing is perfect, and there are plenty of "Oh ****" moments.Baranga

Those are the only parts of the game I do happen to like. The sniper-suit thing is pretty awesome, and hiding in the long grass was really exciting. But those were the only real high points for me.

The setting and modern "stuff" are alot better than what you have in COD2.Baranga

I don't see how they're better, myself. I found the tank convoy in CoD2 way more exciting and enjoyable than the gunship sequence, for example.

Crysis is better, but unfortunately the second part of the game is FAIL. There are some nice moments, like when you run up the river with the big-ass spider on your arse (though it doesn't attack you...), but that's it. Baranga

I'll happily admit that the game goes downhill after the Zero-G stuff, but the 'second part' of the game accounted for about 1/6 of my playtime in the game the first time through, so I didn't really think of it as the second half of the game as much as the final sixth. And even though it does go downhill, there are some excellent set pieces to soften the blow, and the major change in scenario offers some fresh experiences, which is something that Call of Duty 4 rarely offered - even in its paltry five hour campaign.

Crytek has no idea how to make a scripted game,Baranga

But they know how to make exceptional environments. That's half the point of Crysis - it's not a rail shooter like CoD4, you have a moderate degree of freedom, and when you go into an encounter, it's not going to be some scripted and linear event.

[QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="mo0ksi"][QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="Vegas-WarX"]

COD4 was better than CRYSIS...

BlackAlpha666

Why do you think that?

I found CoD4 to be pretty average right across the board.

Crysis on the other hand is really awesome no doubt about that, but I do think STALKER is the better FPS since that most of the bugs in the game have been taken care of.

I thought it was impressive the first time I played it, which was around October 2005.

Playing it again in 2007, not so impressive.

Which game you talking about?

I'm talking about how Call of Duty 4 is Call of Duty 2 wearing a different coloured shirt.

I'm all for more-of-the-same when the game is great, but it just didn't work for me with CoD4. Nothing new was added (for the single player game) at all. Exactly the same experience, only generally less exciting.

[QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="Vegas-WarX"]

COD4 was better than CRYSIS...

mo0ksi

Why do you think that?

I found CoD4 to be pretty average right across the board.

Crysis on the other hand is really awesome no doubt about that, but I do think STALKER is the better FPS since that most of the bugs in the game have been taken care of.

I thought it was impressive the first time I played it, which was around October 2005.

Playing it again in 2007, not so impressive.

That does not excite me. It doesn't have the cool artistry of the Batman Begins one.

It's a little too in-your-face for me. I prefer a little more subtlty. But it's not bad or anything.

[QUOTE="mfsa"]

Do you spend more time typing than talking?

Do you think your speech style in real life has been influenced by your typing style online?

horgen123

Well, I used to have a very strong regional accent and used very localised dialect (like, instead of the word nothing I would say nowt), but when I started chatting online, I used ordinary everyday English rather than my vocal dialect, and not only has it influenced my speech styIe it has had an impact on my accent as well.

Typing online so much has cleaned up my speech styIe and normalised to accent to the point that I don't sound like I'm from where I live.

I was just thinking, if you have 20,000 posts, you must do a fair bit of typing.

Do you spend more time typing than talking?

Do you think your speech style in real life has been influenced by your typing style online?