Unfortunately, that's a no for me... As with most MMOs, the "pay-to-play" system stopped me from playing. ;-)

However, even with 35 hours of work and being a full-time college student, I still find time for about 30 hours of Halo per week. ;-) Halo 3 has only been out since the end of September and I'm already up to a full three weeks of play time.

Ask a historian why he bothered to write down facts. Or a scribe from ancient times why he bothered to learn to read/write. My only point was that, if you're going to say something and have people read it, make it worth reading.

P.S. -- Wonderbread: To end our bickering, take a look at this...looks like an advanced version of R.I.S.K. :)

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/starcraft_products.html

What criticizing? I was merely joining in on the conversation, since I've been a general expert in the area for the past 18 years of my 21-year life, and have even taken classes on the subject. Now, the authors of the books which we've had to study I've criticized plenty. If you'd like me to enter my criticize mode, I'd be glad to do so.

There is, however, a very big difference between "criticizing" and "correcting" when dealing with facts... Such as systems, yeah, still more than three; Diablo III still doesn't exist; etc.

~Tym

P.S. -- Incidentally, I don't like pudding pops, or much other junk food, for that matter. You can have mine, as you seem more offended than I, and may need more of a "chill pill".

Actually, having done a paper on the subject, there was a research study done back in the day just on TETRIS alone that it actually makes you smarter to play it. Furthermore, this is why, even in today's age, video games are used in the military and medical fields for training purposes.

Video games are a way to heighten reflexes and to make your brain work harder than it does on a normal basis. What this does, when used through a systematic training process, such as five hours per day, over an extended length of time, is cause a person to increase the rate at which their brain metabolizes glucose. In other words, they can react faster to stimuli than those who haven't been trained to then react. The neat thing, I think, is that the neurologists also saw that, over time, brain activity actually went down after playing TETRIS for so long, because the game became almost as if it were an automated task for the subjects. Isn't that neat?

I've been kind of doing my own tests on this. I've been playing TETRIS for years (since I was about 4 or 5), but I've been seeing how much I improve going on a certain number of hours per week of play and such since I discovered this research in the fall. So far, my data is inconclusive...

~Tym

Hmmm. All I have to say to this topic is: wow...

Not WoW; but wow. Yes, there's a pun intended there.

Where should I begin? Let's start with...the beginning? Back to the OP we go. That's short hand for Opening Post for those who don't hang out on-line that much.



Well, I think you've answered your own question here. As a hobbyist of a great many things, I've discovered that, as long as you are doing something you enjoy, or can show at least some proficiency in what you're doing, you can consider yourself to have at least a basic skill level for doing whatever it is that you're attempting to do. Ergo, since you say you love to play video games, no matter how good or bad you are at them, you're still somewhat of a "gamer".

Now, there are variations of the term "gamer", as many others have pointed out. A decent list can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer . Based on that, you would fit into the categories of girl/hand-held/casual gamer. I would describe myself as a "power gamer" as they have it listed there.



In my perfectly honest opinion, I think women should do as they enjoy doing instead of what men prefer them to do. However, since you've already asked, I would prefer meeting a woman who enjoys playing games. This would be due mostly to the fact that I greatly enjoy playing them myself, and it would be awesome to be able to spend time doing it together. There's a couple I know right now who are in my L5R (Legend of the Five Rings) group who role-play with us on Saturdays and it seems like a great activity for them to be able to do together as newlyweds.

Anyway, onto the next...



This statement actually brings up a quite interesting point here. Has anyone noticed that guys who play WoW get girls more easily than other guy gamers? I mean, not the guys who play WoW 24/7, but who play it a few times per week or something. I always seem to run into guys that I know who are really competitive at gaming or something and they have smoking hot girlfriends...it always turns out they play WoW.




I've seen many references to "all three systems", this being the first. Now, I know that in today's popular culture, there are three main systems about which we hear being discussed in the media and so forth, but that doesn't mean we should neglect the rich and beloved history in generations past that we can still get out of all of the older, and perhaps wiser, systems. Remember: graphics don't always make a better game! ;-) There's enough information in this article that I can verify it's accuracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console if you'd like to read it.

Although, even with the Atari 2600 being the first actual "console", there were certain developments which led to the branching off of arcade machines which came before even its time. So, as you can see, I don't think the mentioning of only "three systems" is adequate here. Especially when people might not have the necessary funds to purchase all the newest gear, plus games, the total of which coming to over $1,200.




Even though this is out of order, I feel it fits right in with my console rant. For the longest time, there has been an on-going battle between PC gamers and console gamers. Which is better? Everyone wants to say that theirs is better! In my opinion, both have much to offer, which is why I play on both, and have most of the consoles made, as well as a kick-ass computer system. :) I won't say much more for this except that the very first video game was created by a nuclear physicist called "Tennis For Two" to give a demonstration about what their computers could do (basically an early version of Pong). I won't give the physicist's name because he didn't like the idea of video games and didn't want to be known for it, even though he was given credit and was made into a legend as the grandfather of video games... Point: don't forget about PC gaming because that's where video gaming started! Moving right along.




Well, we've already covered the basics with this one; however, Wonderbread, I very much resent your comment here. First, gamers don't have to be categorized as just "people who spend all their time playing games". Secondly, people who spend all their free time playing video games aren't necessarily losers. To call them losers just breaks their will and hurts their feelings. Doing that just gives you a false sense of empowerment, making you feel better about yourself for two seconds out of the day while making someone else feel like ****. What did we call that in grade school? Bullying. Did you know you can actually get into a harassment case for saying something like that nowadays? I bet you didn't know that, did you. ;-) Better think twice before deciding who the aforementioned "loser" is.

Furthermore, if you want to check out some real losers, I guess you should check out the biggest of them all: the ones who play them for money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Gaming You should check out the web site, too. (http://mlgpro.com) It has pictures of their giant check on there. It's pretty cool. Shows how much of a loser one could be... Oh, and let's not forget people like these: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/14/joystiq-visits-harmonix-to-talk-rock-band-dlc-and-incidentals/
Yeah, my choir director's son was hired by Harmonix to sit around with a bunch of other "Quality Testers" all day and play Rock Band. They get paid for it too. It doesn't sound like a bad way to make a living, does it? I forget what it's called, but there also used to be an internship program for Sierra Studios (I don't think it's still running), where they would take talented kids (older kids) to a place in Nevada or California or something and have them play different video games for three months. I wouldn't want to be those people or anything... Such losers...

And let's completely forget about all the people who create the games and have to test them constantly to keep them running, especially for the MMOs. They're so not needed at all. Let's just take 'em out back and shoot 'em. (Can you tell I'm from Kentucky?)

All right Wonderbread...I'm through with you.



Did you suddenly become a different person? You have to play a lot for these games... Oh, and most of the people who play SC on-line are terrible at the game... If you want to play sometime just hit me up. :)



Except Blizzard hasn't worked on anything but WoW and SC2... Nor have they released any information about D3, like, ever, except that it might be coming sometime in the future. Furthermore, most popular gaming sites such as http://pc.ign.com/objects/714/714955.html don't even show a release for it yet. Haha... Oh, this is funny. Check out http://diablo3.com The most information about the game they can offer is that they think Blizzard is currently working on it with a secret team of people... Which is a load of crock. They won't start developing it until after SC2 is out. Until then, WoW still has most of their focus because they still get a lot of money out of it every month.




Sorry, but since WoW, they really haven't cared about much else. :(




Still not thinking with your brain... There's no way SC2 can out-sell WoW. It's just not possible. True, SC has a lot of fans, but with 9 million accounts and growing, WoW already has a fairly decent head start.

From a true gamer:
~Tym

David Hasselhoff

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one on here, then. :-P

It's basically the same, but in the Star Wars universe. It's really fantastic and covers everything from the New and Old Trilogies to the Expanded Universe novels and on.

And if you get into a fight, you fight until you are the victor. Then you win and fun can be had. ;-)

I haven't played Mass Effect, but I've started Assassin's Creed a little because my friend let me borrow his copy. It's all right, but it does get repetitive. I'll totally agree that it is a hack-and-slash game, so there's a large amount of autonomy to it and mostly just storyline, not much actual change in game play throughout it. I will say that it's pretty interesting, though.

Crysis is pretty horrible though, and I would have recommended that for a PC anyway, not the 360. Even though I'm a fan of first-person shooters, I just don't think they did a very good job of implementing their storyline, and the game purposefully cuts off halfway through (just as it gets interesting) so you know there will be a sequel. Furthermore, multi-player sucks because people you shoot once or twice can just speed boost away from you to avoid getting killed, so it's quite pointless, especially with the automatic health regeneration.

Me, I'm a Halo player all the way. It's mainly all I play. Other than that, I just experiment with other games. :-P

We went out for drinks after a gig a few weeks ago and I ran into an old Galaga machine...

Yeah, I don't recall ever seeing anyone else the rest of the night. :-P

John Jacob Jingle Heimer Schmidt

In that case, I think we can all judge by my handle that I'll be casting my vote for the Star Wars d20! ;-)

How can you not take it seriously? If you're not playing to win, why play? :-P

Yeah, we never, EVER play by the rules in that respect. :-P We always use the alternate ruling of 3 infantry cards = 4 armies; 3 cavalry cards = 6 armies; 3 cannon cards = 8 armies; and 1 of each = 10 armies. It makes the game more fair because, as you said, a person can't come back and win just because he waits to cash in his cards one turn after someone else just to get more troops, giving an unfair advantage.

Neil Armstrong

Do table-top RPGs count as board games? If no one knows how to answer that question, then the answer is clearly no. :-P

My vote goes for RISK. I actually collect the games, and I have several different versions, including the original from many years ago (with the Roman numerals for pieces), the newer version with plastic pieces, the Star Wars: Clone Wars Edition, the Star Wars: Original Trilogy Edition, The Lord of the Rings version, and RISK: 2210. I also own a copy of the PC and PS2 games as well. :-P

And yes, I play them all with friends throughout the year on multiple occasions.

I also own many different versions of the Monopoly games, as I collect those as well, but those require much less strategy, ergo I voted for RISK. ;-)

Correction: For Aiur! ;-)

:-P I can't wait, either. I've recently started playing the original SC on-line again and I can't believe how much I've missed it. I haven't played Brood War as much, but I never did like the expansion much except for the campaign.

And yeah, it won't be pay-to-play. That's only for WoW because it's an MMORPG and they have to. Making SC2 pay2play would be the worst idea ever because they wouldn't get much money out of it: everyone would just go back to SC1. ;-)

I love SC so much that my avatar's name in Second Life is Zeratul. :-P

And women call men sexist...