Re: Opinions WC Trestkon's convo with Phas?
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:10 am
Oh christ...armageddon?
I think that movie was succinctly summed up during a scene immediately following some big asteroid-quake, when the crew are looking around wondering if anyone died..."Oh shit..we lost Gruber."
I shit you not: the entire cinema audience promptly asked "who the fuck was Gruber??" and then burst out laughing.
Honestly, if I had to choose between a game that was presented like contact and a game that was presented like armageddon...it'd be contact AAALL the way.
(Well...actually, I'd simply ignore both until they were in a bargain bin then snap em up on a two for one deal, but after playing both, it'd be the contact-esque one I played AGAIN.)
Anyway, just in case: please don't take any of this arguing as aggressive: we tend to debate things to quite ludicrous extents around here sometimes. And you're of course entirely entitled to your own views, but like CtC said, something of this level of significance would certainly have been mentioned in the in-game text (of which there is a SHITLOAD). And don't criticise him for using fucking NUMBERS, because that's a dumb argument. Numbers are quoted when they add to the argument, and they make a hell of a lot of sense.
"Statistically people shot in the face with a cannon tend to die 100% of the time."
"PPPFFFFT, numbers. Whatever. Shoot me already. We'll see who's laughing."
I think that movie was succinctly summed up during a scene immediately following some big asteroid-quake, when the crew are looking around wondering if anyone died..."Oh shit..we lost Gruber."
I shit you not: the entire cinema audience promptly asked "who the fuck was Gruber??" and then burst out laughing.
Honestly, if I had to choose between a game that was presented like contact and a game that was presented like armageddon...it'd be contact AAALL the way.
(Well...actually, I'd simply ignore both until they were in a bargain bin then snap em up on a two for one deal, but after playing both, it'd be the contact-esque one I played AGAIN.)
Anyway, just in case: please don't take any of this arguing as aggressive: we tend to debate things to quite ludicrous extents around here sometimes. And you're of course entirely entitled to your own views, but like CtC said, something of this level of significance would certainly have been mentioned in the in-game text (of which there is a SHITLOAD). And don't criticise him for using fucking NUMBERS, because that's a dumb argument. Numbers are quoted when they add to the argument, and they make a hell of a lot of sense.
"Statistically people shot in the face with a cannon tend to die 100% of the time."
"PPPFFFFT, numbers. Whatever. Shoot me already. We'll see who's laughing."