SGT520

Honestly, it makes more sense for the people to turn into "reverts" rather than children/babies anyway. Think about it. What is the definition of growing old (in technical, medical terms)? It's when your body's organs begin to weaken and, eventually, shut down -- a process that starts the moment we're born. The heart becomes weaker, the lungs inflate less easily, bones become brittle, skin changes color, muscles atrophy, etc. Eventually the organs can no longer support each other and the body shuts down. Once this happens, the effects of death set in and everything decays. So technically all this machine in the game does is speed up this process -- a very do-able prospect (we already do this manually by smoking, taking drugs like cocaine and meth, and even drinking).

However, to actually turn someone back into a child you would have to rebuild tissue, strengthen muscles, repair bone structures, actually decrease the size of the bones and organs, etc etc etc. Most of this isn't even remotely possible without simply replacing the organs, bones, etc, and even then the negative ramifications are impossible to predict.

So honestly, it just makes better sense to change the characters instead of reverse-age them. Granted, it could always be explained as just being future technology or something, like most games and movies do, but the point is that it's not like the game just doesn't make any sense now. It makes perfect sense.


And to D -- the one who says it's his/her "God given right" to kill whatever they want in the virtual world -- there are some things even a video game or movie should not approach, and video games are far from having anything to do with your rights, God given or not. Honestly, you strike me as someone who is dangerously close to losing touch with reality because of digital entertainment, and your comment about it being your right only solidifies the fact. You need to get your head out of the game for a while and get back in touch with the real world and things like ethics.

For all the people who say these are military grade NVG's, don't get your hopes up. "Fully functioning" is all a matter of opinion when it comes to military technology, especially when video gamers are involved (let's face it, a lot of the avid video game fans learn the names of a couple guns -- which are usually wrong due to pattent issues -- on some game and think they're the next John C. Garand.). I've had a couple people tell me the airsoft AEG's I've owned are "fully functional" because the bolt handle happens to move. It's all an over exaggeration.

I highly highly doubt they're going to package legitimate night vision with each game. Most likely, they're basic vision-enhancers, not real night vision. You won't get any useful quality out of them I'm sure. It's easy to fake night vision (they'll probably have something along the lines of video cameras and such: Good enough for close up things, but anything past 10 feet away is out.). To actually package real, military grade night vision with every game, as people claim they will, would boost the cost of each package so high that only the most extreme, rediculous, over-addicted fans will buy them.

I tried out Home when I got my PS3 just to see what it was, but I too found it pretty uneventful. The fact that EVERYTHING required an extra install was pretty annoying too.

Consequently, I think I've used it twice lol. Probably going to remove everything I can about it today.

Yeah, it is a bit daunting at first. But I started playing it just recently after not even playing an FPS on a console at all for probably a month (360 died too many times, so I finally got store credit and picked up a PS3 lol. SOCOM was one of the first games I got, since it looked like a great tactical shooter.) and I was able to pick it up no problem. I'm still not great, but I can hold my own and all that in ranked matches. The players really are a lot more interesting to play with as well. Most of them get more into it than the Halo and COD players (run and gunners, rather than tactics and strategy).

Like the other guy said, jump into some respawn enabled matches first so you can get used to the controls (they are definitely different, but easy once you get used to them) and how the game plays. Give it a few days of that and you'll be ready for the big time in no time :) It didn't take me long to get into the groove, and I hadn't even played a SOCOM game in my lifetime, much less a shooter on PS3 (or any other system) other than a few rounds of Killzone 2 against bots.

Loved GI Joe as a kid, so I hope at least one of the two out of the movie and the game will be worth seeing/playing.

[fingers crossed]

This may be the only XBLA game I actually go buy points for lol (the other points I've gotten have been free because of those promotional deals and whatever. Never actually bought a points card.). Absolutely LOVED BF1942.

Even though I'm not a Halo fan (games were alright, but couldn't play 2 or 3 through more than once and hated multiplayer on all of them), having a suit like that would just be awesome :D

Personally, I wish companies would release some sort of demo for about every game. There are quite a few games that I've suddenly decided I liked just because of playing the demo (Skate, for instance. Just looking at it, I was like "Oh great, another Tony Hawk knock-off", but when I played it my whole view changed. Now, if I wanted to spend the money, I'd probably go out and pre-order Skate 2). I'm willing to try about any game, but unfortunately the demo market seems to be slimming down a lot.

Man, I remember the days when people built gaming systems to provide entertainment, not competition. It was never a question of whether the PS1 was better than the N64. If you told a PS1 owner you had an N64, the response was "Oh cool! What games do you have?" rather than "Sony so owns Nintendo, regardless of the true facts!". Same goes if you told an N64 owner you had a PS1.

Shoot, the debate wasn't even this bad during the Xbox/PS2 years! It was just common knowledge: Xbox was the newest one so graphics and things were generally slightly better, but Live cost money. PS2 was slightly older than the Xbox so the graphical capability wasn't quite the same, but online was free and the game library was huge. And Gamecube was an alright system if you were a very light gamer or had kids, but it wasn't the "hardcore gamer's" system.

I wish we could go back to those days with the new systems. I personally like parts of all of them and dislike parts of all of them. Honestly wouldn't mind having a PS3 because of some of the games, but I wouldn't give up my 360 or Wii to get one because one is "inferior" to the PS3. None of them are inferior, they're just different. They were all made with different ideas in mind. PS3 for people who play alone and want a graphics power-house. 360 for people with friends who play online and want a lot of games. And the Wii for families or people who just want something new (honestly, I think the Wii is the most innovative system this generation. It completely re-did the whole gaming thing.)

One final entry...