It doesnt matter if it doesn't have anything to dowith football! Thats the way life is! If kids get into a fight at school, they get kicked off their team. You have to behave....just because it doesnt have anything to do with football doesn't mean he shouldn't be banned! So what if Vick did this again? And again? And he kept being let out of jail? Just because he's being let out of jail he should keep getting chances to play? Thats basically what you're saying when you say "Killing dogs has nothing to do with football". Obviously you people have no idea what you're talking about....

Big_Papi7

There is a reason that we have laws, so that the criminal justice system punishes people for their crimes, not the public. The law is the only way that people should be punished for a crime. To do otherwise would be going against everything that America stands for.

Fighting at school? The school is an institution. It has rules governing what kids can and cannot do at school. Kids are not allowed to fight at school. That is a school rule. The school also controls who is allowed to play on the school teams, and they are within their rights to punish kids by not letting them play on the team if they break other school rules. If you fail to see the difference between that and what Michael Vick did, i cannot help you. If Michael Vick had broken an NFL rule, by betting on his own games, or slugging a ref, there would be connection, but here, there is no connection.

I don't care how much of a goddamned scumbag Michael Vick is. Once he serves out the punishment that the American Criminal Justice System has given him, he needs to be given a second chance to play football. Nobody can continue punish you once the law has said that you are rehabilitated. It is illegal to discriminate against job applicants that have prior criminal records. It is illegal.

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"][QUOTE="Big_Papi7"][QUOTE="Eman5805"][QUOTE="KaptainKorn"][QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]

He should not be banned from football for crimes unrelated to football. He broke the law, and the law should punish him as harshly as they can, but the NFL is something completely different.BlackStalker

You're kidding me. If someone decides to be an axe murderer after they clock out at work, you wouldn't expect them to be fired eventually?

Last time I checked, ax murders kill PEOPLE. You can't possibly be equating an ax murder with what Vick has done, that isn't even REMOTELY close in my book. Please tell me that ain't what you're saying.

If a teacher gets a DUI, they can be fired from their job.When you apply for a job, you have to check the"have you been convicted of a felony"box,companies have the right to not hire you, so why would that be any diiferent here.klslick

There's GREAT reason to not have a convicted felon teach children, that same reason doesn't apply to football. You want to win games. If he does his time, and a team thinks Vick still has enough legs under him, they'll probably sign him. Why shouldn't they? He woulda already served his time, and inevitable suspension.

I can't believe anyone would even side with Vick even a little bit after what he did. What he did was absolutely cruel! How can you say after what he did he still should have the privilege of playing football? Thats ridiculous. And about you're "Axe murderers kill PEOPLE" thing, of course killing people is terrible! Its absolutely terrible, in fact theres no word for how terrible that would be in my book. But I don't think there is a bad enough word to explain what he did to those dogs either. His privilege was playing football, and he ruined it when he broke the law.

What Vick did has nothing to do with football. How can you possibly justify banning him, when he is going to all ready be punished by the law? Because he's a bad person? Give me a $%@#ing break. Why would I have to worry about firing an axe murderer, when he is going to be in prison?

A teacher is directly responsible for children, a role model. If a teacher has a drinking problem, he or she should be let go, but not banned them from teaching forever. If the teacher were to go through rehab, I would consider hiring he or she, if they were the most qualified candidate.

Michael Vick is more of a role-model then any teacher is. He had millions of people, kids watching him. Then he goes proves what he really is by dog fighting. You know he watered down dogs and then electricuted them? He is a sick man and should rot in jail for at least 15 years. Are you kidding me? Reinstate him in the league? Are you kidding me? Even if he was allowed NO team would sign him. But he wont be allowed, as he shouldn't be. I can't beleive your justifying him actually playing football. When you have millions of dollars, you don't need this. He obviously didn't do it for the money. He did it cause he is a ****'d up man who likes killing dogs and watch them kill each other. IMO, I hope he rots in jail for the rest of his life and never does anythign with his now sorry excuse of a life. People do deserve second chances, not Michael Vick.

And what does killing dogs have to do with football? Nothing. You guys are ridiculous.

When did I justify anything? I said that he should not be banned from football for crimes unrelated to the sport of football. Say anything you want about it, but killing dogs has nothing at all to do with football. He will be punished by the law, and that is where his punishment should end. Once he serves the time that the American criminal justice system allots as his punishment, Michael Vick should be allowed to play football again. That doesn't mean that he will play, or that anybody will sign him, but it would be travesty to keep punishing the man after he has all ready served the time that the law has set for him.

i found that odd to i just don't see that happening ever. with all the money that can be made in the video game industry there is no way anyone would let just one company reign supreme.-Renegade

There is definitely lots of money to made in the video game industry...in games. Not in consoles.

[QUOTE="Eman5805"][QUOTE="KaptainKorn"][QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]

He should not be banned from football for crimes unrelated to football. He broke the law, and the law should punish him as harshly as they can, but the NFL is something completely different.Big_Papi7

You're kidding me. If someone decides to be an axe murderer after they clock out at work, you wouldn't expect them to be fired eventually?

Last time I checked, ax murders kill PEOPLE. You can't possibly be equating an ax murder with what Vick has done, that isn't even REMOTELY close in my book. Please tell me that ain't what you're saying.

If a teacher gets a DUI, they can be fired from their job.When you apply for a job, you have to check the"have you been convicted of a felony"box,companies have the right to not hire you, so why would that be any diiferent here.klslick

There's GREAT reason to not have a convicted felon teach children, that same reason doesn't apply to football. You want to win games. If he does his time, and a team thinks Vick still has enough legs under him, they'll probably sign him. Why shouldn't they? He woulda already served his time, and inevitable suspension.

I can't believe anyone would even side with Vick even a little bit after what he did. What he did was absolutely cruel! How can you say after what he did he still should have the privilege of playing football? Thats ridiculous. And about you're "Axe murderers kill PEOPLE" thing, of course killing people is terrible! Its absolutely terrible, in fact theres no word for how terrible that would be in my book. But I don't think there is a bad enough word to explain what he did to those dogs either. His privilege was playing football, and he ruined it when he broke the law.

What Vick did has nothing to do with football. How can you possibly justify banning him, when he is going to all ready be punished by the law? Because he's a bad person? Give me a $%@#ing break. Why would I have to worry about firing an axe murderer, when he is going to be in prison?

A teacher is directly responsible for children, a role model. If a teacher has a drinking problem, he or she should be let go, but not banned them from teaching forever. If the teacher were to go through rehab, I would consider hiring he or she, if they were the most qualified candidate.

He should not be banned from football for crimes unrelated to football. He broke the law, and the law should punish him as harshly as they can, but the NFL is something completely different. They are within their rights to ban him from the sport, but it would be wrong to do so.

His crime is most certainly worse than that of Pete Rose, but Rose's actions went against the very nature of organized sport.

[QUOTE="JPOBS"]read the review. his main concerns are that theres no death penalty making the game easy as cake, and that the combat isnt all that great. Its much more thna just the glitches.
Jandurin

:shock:

HD content is widescreen by default.

I think the new rating system has screwed things up. It is clear that Gamespot never wants to give another game a 10, so what is the point in the new rating system? It's turned 9.5 into the new 10. They need to reserve 9.5 for the absolute best games, and that pushes a lot of stuff down to 9.0.

I even thought the old rating system was little screwy, but this one is ridiculous. What is the point in having a rating system from 1 to 10 with so many increments, if good games are going to be relegated to the top 30%. Only terrible games got ratings below 60%. Why should terrible take up over half of the scale? Now they have reduced the number of possible scores by nearly 80%, and they have compounded the problem, relegating good games to only 5 or so possible scores.

There need to be lots of room at the top of the scale, so that really good can be distinguished from great and really great. The new rating system destroys that hope.

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"][QUOTE="zipozal"]

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]I'm pretty sure that those resolutions will only be useful for professional applications at the start, such as editing photographs, or 4K video.zipozal

Why the hell is that? There are cards that could do it in games.

Because of the sheer amount of data which would need to be created / processed to make it feasible for games, at least if you want to see an actual improvement in the graphics. Increased resolution means more work for the game devs, on top of the processing. They have to create the high-resolution textures that will have to be applied. It is not just a matter of cranking up the resolution; work has to be done. So much work in fact that it probably is a stupid idea in the mean while. Top of the line computers choke just playing back 4K video, how do you expect them to create it on the fly?

If you read the dam original topic I explained all that, there is more then enough evidence to show that 3840 by 2400 will run at roughly half the frame rate of 2560 by 1600 this already means that any games thats a couple years old will more then run on this resolution on a 8800GTX, add to that the fact that the 9800GTX coming this winter will be 2 to 3 times the speed of the 8800GTX and you can clearly see a single 9800GTX will run most games at that resolution at playable frames rates while 2 in sli will run probably any game at that res even crysis at playable rates.

Which still does nothing to explain why game developers will do the extra work to make games that take advantage of a resolution that virtually nobody will have monitors to display. Once again, there is more to making high resolution games than just cranking up the resolution. They would need to make all of the textures for those resolutions, which would take up obscene amounts of space, probably even more than a Blu-Ray disc can hold.

This is like getting excited over this graphics accelerator from nVidia...

...until you realize that it is not being designed to run games.

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]I'm pretty sure that those resolutions will only be useful for professional applications at the start, such as editing photographs, or 4K video.zipozal

Why the hell is that? There are cards that could do it in games.

Because of the sheer amount of data which would need to be created / processed to make it feasible for games, at least if you want to see an actual improvement in the graphics. Increased resolution means more work for the game devs, on top of the processing. They have to create the high-resolution textures that will have to be applied. It is not just a matter of cranking up the resolution; work has to be done. So much work in fact that it probably is a stupid idea in the mean while. Top of the line computers choke just playing back 4K video, how do you expect them to create it on the fly?