The Tr0ll T0ll

I'm mainly a console gamer, and all my ME saves are on Xbox, so I'll be getting it there. I gotta say, though, having seen the bloatware that is Origin and then looking through my Steam library at all the money I've saved (hell, Steam is pretty much the only reason I still play anything on PC).... I don't think that I'd be super-jazzed about buying this on Origin if I had started the series on PC. Steam works. Origin? Meh.

@TheMessenger Cool story, bro.

Uh, also, that's completely bankrupt ethically. You basically just asserted that all the kids that die of hunger in the third world every day deserve to be dead because they are human. If that's ok by whoever is running whatever your concept of heaven is, count me out. I'm not a believer in much at all, and typically I don't care if someone else is, but it's that kind of smug assertion that innocent starving children are somehow "sinners" that deserve it that irks me.

@Shig This is correct.

Lol. I literally just bought a PVR. Wow I hope this fails.

@(Unverified) A "liberal leftist" who was one of the only Dems to oppose ArnieCare in '08?? Try again please.

As someone stated above:

Lefties - opposed to violence in video games (and all other media)
Righties - opposed to sex in video games (and all other media)

Video game laws proposed by either side - dumb.

@Raffi256 "I know that courts have lots of doctines like stare decisis that are well-established, but it doesn't change the fact that rulings like this one sound totally absurd. I mean c'mon, a constitutional amendment restricting acts by congress applied to a state law regulating the sale of video games? If you consider the original meaning of the law it sounds so ridiculous. I don't understand how any of this is legitimate. The judges are in effect changing the law through judicial decree instead of it happening through legitimate republican means and that's totally broken."

The judges didn't change the law in question, they ruled it unconstitutional, and as such, invalid. While you are very likely correct that the 14th amendment was originally intended for a *primary* purpose other than this, that doesn't mean that the SCOTUS, or we as citizens, can just ignore the *letter* of the constitution now. If we do that, what good is any of it??

@Fermie Prime +1, though I think it's also fair to point out that the usual offenders regarding this *particular brand* of nanny-stating have R's next to their name just as often as they have D's, no?

@Aerothorn I didn't find it snarky or one-sided, to be honest. Stiq did the best they could with what was being offered to them by the good senator, which wasn't much that any court could've taken seriously. The legal intricacies were more lost on the bill's author than they were on the people who were writing about it here. It was a bad law, and it got smacked down every time it went before a judge. What were they supposed to say?

Probably not. The weapon stats/comparisons in Black Ops/MW 2 were cool, but they aren't worth money. Not sure I grasp the business model here...

@Pennegan Indeed. I play a bit of COD, but there's nothing in that description that I would pay for. The only way I could see myself doing it is if ALL of my COD buddies decide to pay for it AND I was at some kind of disadvantage by being the only one not to pony up.