@percuvius2 Yes... But no one ever claimed the Wii U version would look better than the PC version. As stated in the article, they're just talking about consoles.
Makes sense, the WiiU may eventually look worse than it's peers, but until Sony and MS get around to the next gen, it's obviously going to be the best looking.
@ehkzibiht I've been laid off, if that counts to you, and I find it unlikely that West and Zampella were in nearly as much jeopardy as I was (and I wasn't even in any, really).
I find it very hard to believe these guys "suffered" as described here. Honestly, I find it more believable they might have let out a sigh of relief and got straight to preparing the lawsuit they were sure to win, while going through with their buds at EA they were miraculously already in talks with.
@nate1222 No it isn't. The worst Activision does is produce popular rehashes of year old games (even then, CoD is really the only title where this happens). EA on the other hand, has left a bloody trail ruined games and studios that Activision couldn't hope to compare to.
For those guys to move from Activision to EA is like moving from New Jersey to North Korea; they both suck in ways, but one is definitely worse.
@tommy_boy9999 Is English not your first language? If it is, I'm sorry, that's not meant as an insult, but there seems to be some kind of large obstacle in the way of communication here, and it seems no amount of argument will communicate effectively in this instance. Your posts just don't indicate to me that you're understanding much of what I say.
@tommy_boy9999 You haven't given any evidence, so there's none to ignore. That's my whole point; you aren't referencing any evidence, but insist others do so.
Also, you seem to be ignoring large portions of my posts. You ask if I am implying that there is no corruption in politics, yet the post JUST ABOVE YOURS says: "I know full well that there are currently corrupt politicians, that there have been many in the past, and likely will be for some time, but that doesn't mean that every last one is completely corrupted." And your phrase "Both sides are corrupt to the highest level" seemed to imply that the majority of these politicians were corrupt. So I guess I'm sorry if that's not what you meant, as that's what I inferred.
@tommy_boy9999 I know full well that there are currently corrupt politicians, that there have been many in the past, and likely will be for some time, but that doesn't mean that every last one is completely corrupted. I say you have no facts to back up your assumption because no DEMONSTRABLE facts exist for you to reference. I suppose it's entirely possible for every last politician to be corrupt, but it's highly unlikely, and far too neat an explanation for the current state of things. It's just not so simple as "I've seen corruption in politics, so of course ALL politician MUST be corrupt!". There's actually a name for that fallacy, the "Hasty generalization" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
@RealFabioSooner Just a note: I don't believe in, in any way, our 2 party system. Honestly, I believe no party system should exists in the first place, and instead a system that has people vote based solely on candidate stances on issues relevant to them.
That, however, does not mean that every least politician is a member of the Legion of Doom.
PS: Socialism, in certain forms, is working well in several places. You may have confused it with communism.
parrot_of_adun's comments