I hear Viagra helps you with that.Ender2309 wrote:
i've gone close to around 3 years without a rrod.
Search
Search results: 578 found, showing up to 50
NORMALLY works out at £150 per month? Normally?Ultrafunkula wrote:
Mr Dobsyn, an IT contractor from Manchester, was determined to fight the bill which is normally works out at £150 per month.
That'll get me through almost 2 years of phone bills.
Hot chicks, too.HurricaИe wrote:
If there's one reason to move to Europe, it's better internet and phone service.
What was that creepy drawnbypain.com thing at the end of that video?
Suicide doors in the back?TSI wrote:
4. Finally, a bit of an oddity. It's the Nissan in the intersection--karma to whomever can see the funny thing first!
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa12 … 181256.jpg
Never was?
Christine, Magnum's Ferrari, Family Truckster, Bluesmobile, Eleanor, General Lee...
All those are regular cars, most of them not even modified.
Anyway, what I was actually going to say is:
There's clearly a car missing in this list.
Christine, Magnum's Ferrari, Family Truckster, Bluesmobile, Eleanor, General Lee...
All those are regular cars, most of them not even modified.
Anyway, what I was actually going to say is:
There's clearly a car missing in this list.
To be hones, I can't really believe that's what the people want. I am more than sure though, that's what the antique FIFA officials want.mikkel wrote:
The way I see it, the threat of suspension is enough to keep a team from doing it in the first place. The only situation I can see it as being insufficient in would be a tournament final, but hopefully playing by the rules in all other games will inspire more fair play in the few games in which a team can get away with it.maef wrote:
While I think that reviewing a game afterwards and giving out punishment for unsportsmanlike conduct is a good idea, the problem is that a suspension isn't going to help the team that lost the game because of the dive. There still needs to be a way do ensure correct decisions in-game.mikkel wrote:
Yeah, but it's sort of a slippery slope to go down. I find that what appeals to me the most in football is that it isn't governed by some eagle eye in the sky that sees and knows everything. I like how you might get a decisive set piece on a weak decision, or how offside balls are scored on from time to time.
I think the right way to go is to make sure that the game has the best referees available, and that unsportsmanlike behaviour like taking obvious dives, or giving out nasty hits while referees aren't looking is punished after the match by a review board, with more than just the impact of a yellow card.
Recorded evidence of obvious dives in critical situations should always result in a one match suspension, if it was up to me.
And there are way, way too many wrong decisions on offsides. These days it's almost a rarity to see a game that wasn't influenced by a wrong call on an offside, a free-kick or a penalty. This just needs to stop. In no other sport do referees influence the outcome of a game as massively as they do in football. Say what you want, but in my opinion that is simply unacceptable.
Football is a game of both skill and chance, yeah, but as wildly popular as it is, the basic aspects of the game, such as relying solely on the referees' decisions on the pitch, must be what people want. I know I wouldn't want it any other way.
I know quite a few die-hard football fanatics at work and they all say the ruling system needs reforming. Everyone I know that likes the sport is annoyed by all the diving, the wrong calls on offsides and playing for time by faking injuries towards the end of the game.
I didn't watch that game, but I saw a report about that incident today and I have to say I'm really impressed by that ref.Zimmer wrote:
Well, one perfect example where refs are actually listening to other opinions was the Russia - Netherlands game. Where one of the russians just brought down a guy at the end of the pitch on Russias side, the referee whistled freekick and gave the turk a yellow card - which would have meant a sending off - but then he looked and saw that the linesman had already had his flag up, so he reversed his decision and gave the freekick to the Russians, removing the yellow card... I think that is a perfect example of how some football is moving on, although very slowly, at that. That referre gained a lot of respect that day, you don't see such an action very often.
It's a step in the right direction. A small one, but it's a start.
While I think that reviewing a game afterwards and giving out punishment for unsportsmanlike conduct is a good idea, the problem is that a suspension isn't going to help the team that lost the game because of the dive. There still needs to be a way do ensure correct decisions in-game.mikkel wrote:
Yeah, but it's sort of a slippery slope to go down. I find that what appeals to me the most in football is that it isn't governed by some eagle eye in the sky that sees and knows everything. I like how you might get a decisive set piece on a weak decision, or how offside balls are scored on from time to time.maef wrote:
You're right, and that's the point. It's time for those stubborn, balky old fucks in the FIFA to retire. It's time for them to make way for people who are willing to bring some reform to the sport.mikkel wrote:
I know how football works, you know, and I've always been of the opinion that dramatising things to force calls is unsportsmanlike. What I'm replying to is how people keep bitching about it specifically being in football, and writes off the entire sport because of it. It happens in every sport where the player can get away with it.
Over the past few decades, football has become so much faster, the old system of ruling just can't cope with it anymore.
I mean, Jesus Christ, even the ultimate conservative sport of Tennis has introduced video reviews.
I think the right way to go is to make sure that the game has the best referees available, and that unsportsmanlike behaviour like taking obvious dives, or giving out nasty hits while referees aren't looking is punished after the match by a review board, with more than just the impact of a yellow card.
Recorded evidence of obvious dives in critical situations should always result in a one match suspension, if it was up to me.
And there are way, way too many wrong decisions on offsides. These days it's almost a rarity to see a game that wasn't influenced by a wrong call on an offside, a free-kick or a penalty. This just needs to stop. In no other sport do referees influence the outcome of a game as massively as they do in football. Say what you want, but in my opinion that is simply unacceptable.
You're right, and that's the point. It's time for those stubborn, balky old fucks in the FIFA to retire. It's time for them to make way for people who are willing to bring some reform to the sport.mikkel wrote:
I know how football works, you know, and I've always been of the opinion that dramatising things to force calls is unsportsmanlike. What I'm replying to is how people keep bitching about it specifically being in football, and writes off the entire sport because of it. It happens in every sport where the player can get away with it.maef wrote:
Well, how about they actually try and play ball instead of attempting to force referee decisions?mikkel wrote:
Players in all sports try to force rulings through drama. This just happens to be an effective way of doing it in football. If diving like that forced referee decisions in rugby or American football, you'd find it there as well.
I can't recall how many times I've seen a player dive in the box, trying to get a penalty when he could easily have gotten his balance back and reached the ball in time. In most of those situations they don't even get the penalty. And you know why they don't get it? Because the ref just can't trust a player falling anymore because of all the dives these days.
Over the past few decades, football has become so much faster, the old system of ruling just can't cope with it anymore.
I mean, Jesus Christ, even the ultimate conservative sport of Tennis has introduced video reviews.
Well, how about they actually try and play ball instead of attempting to force referee decisions?mikkel wrote:
Players in all sports try to force rulings through drama. This just happens to be an effective way of doing it in football. If diving like that forced referee decisions in rugby or American football, you'd find it there as well.maef wrote:
Yes. Yes, they do. Ronaldo is worse than just about everyone else, but they all do it (with very, very few exceptions).Gooners wrote:
No. They. Don't.
Ronaldo does though.
I mean, every one of us gets bumps and bruises in everyday life worse than some of those you see on the football field. You notice the bump, you live with it, you move on. It's not even pain you feel, you just register the touch of something or someone.
Just imagine everyday life, someone turns around and bumps into you with his elbow. What do you do? You maybe give him an evil look, he says sorry, you both move on.
On the football field? The one who got hit falls to the ground in the most dramatic manner possible, holding his chest and rolling around in pain like a raging bull just rammed him.
It's just ridiculous.
I can't recall how many times I've seen a player dive in the box, trying to get a penalty when he could easily have gotten his balance back and reached the ball in time. In most of those situations they don't even get the penalty. And you know why they don't get it? Because the ref just can't trust a player falling anymore because of all the dives these days.
Yes. Yes, they do. Ronaldo is worse than just about everyone else, but they all do it (with very, very few exceptions).Gooners wrote:
No. They. Don't.Ryan wrote:
I don't even have to watch the video to know that he pussied out for getting kicked in the shin or something stupid like that. Those soccer players exaggerate every little boo-boo they get.
Ronaldo does though.
I mean, every one of us gets bumps and bruises in everyday life worse than some of those you see on the football field. You notice the bump, you live with it, you move on. It's not even pain you feel, you just register the touch of something or someone.
Just imagine everyday life, someone turns around and bumps into you with his elbow. What do you do? You maybe give him an evil look, he says sorry, you both move on.
On the football field? The one who got hit falls to the ground in the most dramatic manner possible, holding his chest and rolling around in pain like a raging bull just rammed him.
It's just ridiculous.
Kinda reminds me of Joe Theisman.DrunkFace wrote:
Does not hurt...mikkel wrote:
I love how some people are downplaying this while promoting whatever sport they like themselves. If someone came with studded football shoes and stomped their feet in a position like that, they'd cry like babies themselves.
That being said, Ronaldo deserves to experience some of the pain he's always feigning.
That hurts.
Also:
An incomparable display of the fine art of acting. Masterpiece.
=DrunkFace wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … _Cents.jpgBuckles wrote:
Two coins make 30cents.
One of them isn't a nickel.
What are the two coins?
^^easy, I know but I like it
^^ Scrubs ftw!
+
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … _Cents.jpg
=
30c
0.28554 U.S. dollars
Sorry.
You lost me right there.CC-Marley wrote:
foxnews
Google knows everything and does everything.csmag wrote:
Not what i meant.Gooners wrote:
That is your Fahrenheit unless its 74 degrees Celsiuscsmag wrote:
72-74
I dunno my Fahrenheit but I think that's about it.
I meant that i don't know my Fahrenheit very well and that I was guessing.
Even conversions.
Huge kudos to them for managing to implement the browser's back button in Ajax-based techonology.
That's a bitch to handle.
That's a bitch to handle.
I did that a few months ago.
There was even one level that could be completed using less blocks than what the game called minimum.
I don't remember which one that was though.
There was even one level that could be completed using less blocks than what the game called minimum.
I don't remember which one that was though.
Boxes?TheAussieReaper wrote:
After they make Styrofoam, what do they ship it in?
OK, so they're underperforming in this tournament, but shitty strikers? The hell are you talking about?Mek-Stizzle wrote:
France, how the fuck did they qualify?
Italy won't beat Spain, Italy have shitty strikers who can't score whilst Spain have probably the best two forwards in the tournament.
One of them is top-scorer in the German Bundesliga and the other one in the Italian Serie A. That doesn't come out of nowhere.
And I'm not saying that because I'm a fan of Italy by any means. In fact, I pretty much loathe their whiny asses.
Well, at least this time the defeat was deserved.
Of all three games so far, this one annoys me the least. Sure, it was the match that decided it all, but this time the opponent deserved to win. We were playing along fairly well, but honestly, we wouldn't have deserved a victory. We could have gone to the quarter finals after the first two games, but we're simply lacking a reliable scorer.
Seeing as Austria was one of the youngest teams in this tournament, the disappointment could be much worse. We proved we can actually play football at a decent level and I think we'll do fairly well at the World Championships in two years. Of course I'm not gonna say we'll go anywhere near winning the tournament, but I see good times coming towards us.
Shame we're out of the Euro for now, but it can only get better.
Now that we're out, I'm supporting the Netherlands. Not because they did a great job so far, but I've always liked their national team.
I wish everyone great fun and good times for the rest of the tournament.
As long as the fans of the remaining teams come to Austria to celebrate, I'll be having a great time as well.
See you in two years.
(Please excuse any incoherences, I'm fairly drunk by now.)
Of all three games so far, this one annoys me the least. Sure, it was the match that decided it all, but this time the opponent deserved to win. We were playing along fairly well, but honestly, we wouldn't have deserved a victory. We could have gone to the quarter finals after the first two games, but we're simply lacking a reliable scorer.
Seeing as Austria was one of the youngest teams in this tournament, the disappointment could be much worse. We proved we can actually play football at a decent level and I think we'll do fairly well at the World Championships in two years. Of course I'm not gonna say we'll go anywhere near winning the tournament, but I see good times coming towards us.
Shame we're out of the Euro for now, but it can only get better.
Now that we're out, I'm supporting the Netherlands. Not because they did a great job so far, but I've always liked their national team.
I wish everyone great fun and good times for the rest of the tournament.
As long as the fans of the remaining teams come to Austria to celebrate, I'll be having a great time as well.
See you in two years.
(Please excuse any incoherences, I'm fairly drunk by now.)
I think the one you meant was Italy vs. Netherlands, where the scorer would have been offside if it wasn't for that defender who was laying behind the goal line after colliding with his goalie.Zimmer wrote:
Oh shi-, sorry, wrong game.... it was another offside.... I can't remember what game... but the UEFA certainly confirmed that it wasn't offside. This one was. Apologies.B-Scimitar wrote:
Please explain page 103, picture 1.Zimmer wrote:
Nismo : Wrong, the goal was legal because his foot was behind the goalkeeper, which automatically puts him onside - rule is, if you are behind everyone AND the keeper, you are still onside.
The UEFA confirmed that.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affeder … _10565.pdf
Unfortunately, I seem to be quite a pessimist. While most other Austrians were fairly happy about the draw against Poland, I'm rather disappointed. Not just about this game, about our performance in the Euro in general.
I know, most of the people who read/post in this thread are well informed about the tournament anyway, but let me sum it up for you.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am going to refer to the Austrian national team as "us". Not just out of patriotism, also out of convenience.
Austria vs. Croatia:
Yes, the much-disputed penalty right at the start of the game. While I do think it was a tough decision to make that call, you can't really argue with it. He didn't necessarily have to blow the whistle, but it was definitely a justifiable call and well within the rules. He could have let it slide for the sake of the game, but well... sucks to be us.
After being completely dumbfounded for the next half hour, Austria started to get their act back together and dominated the game. Especially in the second half we had one chance after another, but failed to score. I'm not going to try and blame this on anyone but our own inability.
In overtime though, Kienast was massively held back by a Croatian player on an Austrian free-kick, essentially preventing him from getting in position for a decent header. The ball was coming towards him and the ref stood less than 5 meters away. This should definitely have been a penalty, especially when you consider the FIFA advised the refs to be strict on this kind of thing just before the Euro.
Austria vs. Poland:
We started off incredibly strong with one great chance after another. Again, there's no one to blame but ourselves for not going ahead at least 2:0 right then and there.
About half an hour into the game Poland scores on us. From an offside position. The side-ref has to do nothing at that point but check for offsides, so again there's no excuse for overseeing it. At least this time we handled the score a bit better, not being completely stumped for the rest of the half.
At some point, Ivanschitz storms into Poland's box all by himself and the defender grabs him by his shirt to rip him to the ground. Again, a penalty in my opinion, but no call.
In overtime, we get the previously discussed penalty. A justified call if you ask me, even though Prödl was held back less than Kienast was in the game against Croatia.
Sidenote: What I really don't get is: How in the world can people and even newspapers from Poland complain about that penalty? They said the referee "stole" the victory from them.
Not only were the refs advised to be strict on those things, what's worse is that their goal was an offside. Penalties are a matter of interpretation, offside is a goddamn fact. While some might call the penalty a harsh decision, their goal was definitely irregular.
He basically gave them a goal that wasn't supposed to count and they still bitch around. I just don't get it.
tl;dr: We should have gotten 3 penalties in those 2 games, one of which was called, and wasted loads of chances to score. A little more luck and ref decisions going more in favor and we could already have 6 points and be qualified for the quarter-finals.
Considering that, I just can't be happy about the outcome of Thursday's game.
I know, most of the people who read/post in this thread are well informed about the tournament anyway, but let me sum it up for you.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am going to refer to the Austrian national team as "us". Not just out of patriotism, also out of convenience.
Austria vs. Croatia:
Yes, the much-disputed penalty right at the start of the game. While I do think it was a tough decision to make that call, you can't really argue with it. He didn't necessarily have to blow the whistle, but it was definitely a justifiable call and well within the rules. He could have let it slide for the sake of the game, but well... sucks to be us.
After being completely dumbfounded for the next half hour, Austria started to get their act back together and dominated the game. Especially in the second half we had one chance after another, but failed to score. I'm not going to try and blame this on anyone but our own inability.
In overtime though, Kienast was massively held back by a Croatian player on an Austrian free-kick, essentially preventing him from getting in position for a decent header. The ball was coming towards him and the ref stood less than 5 meters away. This should definitely have been a penalty, especially when you consider the FIFA advised the refs to be strict on this kind of thing just before the Euro.
Austria vs. Poland:
We started off incredibly strong with one great chance after another. Again, there's no one to blame but ourselves for not going ahead at least 2:0 right then and there.
About half an hour into the game Poland scores on us. From an offside position. The side-ref has to do nothing at that point but check for offsides, so again there's no excuse for overseeing it. At least this time we handled the score a bit better, not being completely stumped for the rest of the half.
At some point, Ivanschitz storms into Poland's box all by himself and the defender grabs him by his shirt to rip him to the ground. Again, a penalty in my opinion, but no call.
In overtime, we get the previously discussed penalty. A justified call if you ask me, even though Prödl was held back less than Kienast was in the game against Croatia.
Sidenote: What I really don't get is: How in the world can people and even newspapers from Poland complain about that penalty? They said the referee "stole" the victory from them.
Not only were the refs advised to be strict on those things, what's worse is that their goal was an offside. Penalties are a matter of interpretation, offside is a goddamn fact. While some might call the penalty a harsh decision, their goal was definitely irregular.
He basically gave them a goal that wasn't supposed to count and they still bitch around. I just don't get it.
tl;dr: We should have gotten 3 penalties in those 2 games, one of which was called, and wasted loads of chances to score. A little more luck and ref decisions going more in favor and we could already have 6 points and be qualified for the quarter-finals.
Considering that, I just can't be happy about the outcome of Thursday's game.
Nothing fancy, I like my watches clean and simple.
There's that.The Sheriff wrote:
Hackney is in London.TheAussieReaper wrote:
A web programmer from Hackney? Last name Mudkips? First name David?
I think this guy gave the reporter some false details.
And what's so suspicious about "David"?
You might want to skip those first two drinking parts though. Or take a taxi.stkhoplite wrote:
Good idear'Eeee wrote:
If you don't know anyone, then it's gonna suck, but I'm pretty sure there must be someone, who you know.
Also, I agree about the alcohol suggestion. Go and get some beer, while you are here. It does work rather well. And, when you go to the party, you will have an excuse that you are drunk, so you don't have to talk. Just jump around.
I'll start drinking now
Drink now
Drink in the car
Drink there
???
profit
Yeah, I'll really miss out on all those years tied to a wheelchair, unable to control my own bowel movement...HurricaИe wrote:
you're all gonna be on an iron liver when you turn 60
I know there are quite a few alcohol-haters around here, but...
The easiest way to make a boring party more entertaining is getting drunk. Simple as that.
The easiest way to make a boring party more entertaining is getting drunk. Simple as that.
You think that's bad?
Look what I'm getting. I hope there isn't something the omniscient AdSense knows that I don't...
If I remember correctly, I was around 12 when I first tried it. Smoked quite a lot for a few years, until I had some trouble with the police.
Since then I did it maybe 2 or 3 more times. And each of those times I was already drunk when I smoked and regretted it the next morning. Not because I don't like it anymore or anything, but since I have already been caught once, I would face some uncomfortable consequences if it happened again. Also, I never liked mixing pot and alcohol.
Just see it that way, I'm living proof that pot is not addictive. I smoked probably 4 times a week for years and stopped from one day to the next. I never suffered from any sorts of withdrawal, neither physical nor psychological.
Since then I did it maybe 2 or 3 more times. And each of those times I was already drunk when I smoked and regretted it the next morning. Not because I don't like it anymore or anything, but since I have already been caught once, I would face some uncomfortable consequences if it happened again. Also, I never liked mixing pot and alcohol.
Just see it that way, I'm living proof that pot is not addictive. I smoked probably 4 times a week for years and stopped from one day to the next. I never suffered from any sorts of withdrawal, neither physical nor psychological.
This is the thing I hate by far the most. It's "should HAVE" for fuck's sake."[...] must of [...]"
could OF
should OF
They're two completely different words.
You can't just replace one word with another only because they sound similar if a bee stung you in the tongue one too many times.
God, I hate that.
Not my photo, obviously, but it's the exact same finish.
And I have to agree with Adams_BJ. Motocross helmets might look good in general, but imagine them on a naked bike like this, a racing bike or even a chopper. Regardless of the speed, just no. Doesn't work.
So you started out on this site as a complete retard, seemingly went normal and now went back to incomprehensible asininity?
Bored much?
Bored much?
Meh, everybody's panic of the military service is way over the top. Seems like everyone is desperately looking for ways to evade the whole thing.
Aside from the fact that it really is kind of a waste of time I don't see what's so bad about it. Sure, the first few weeks might be somewhat rough, but after that it's a fucking piece of cake. You get there on time in the morning, leave on time, get wasted with the other guys stationed there, all in all a pretty laid back time.
Plus it's the only (or at least easiest, only legal) way I was ever going to get to shoot a fully automatic rifle.
Plus I also had full marks on all the tests and therefor was made a medic. Reads: I got full scale EMT-training including valid certifications for free, which can be useful at times. For example, if I felt like it I, could get a job as ambulance driver without needing any additional tests or whatever. That's gotta amount to something.
Aside from the fact that it really is kind of a waste of time I don't see what's so bad about it. Sure, the first few weeks might be somewhat rough, but after that it's a fucking piece of cake. You get there on time in the morning, leave on time, get wasted with the other guys stationed there, all in all a pretty laid back time.
Plus it's the only (or at least easiest, only legal) way I was ever going to get to shoot a fully automatic rifle.
Plus I also had full marks on all the tests and therefor was made a medic. Reads: I got full scale EMT-training including valid certifications for free, which can be useful at times. For example, if I felt like it I, could get a job as ambulance driver without needing any additional tests or whatever. That's gotta amount to something.
I fucking hate Brucie.
Nice job tho.
Nice job tho.
On the contrary. I even found it to be quite a humorous way of accentuating.Funky_Finny wrote:
Am I the only one who got it straight away?Aries_37 wrote:
He's saying you should use the highlight bbcode instead of doing the:jamiet757 wrote:
And i cant wait to see a new box on the shelves for 360. hl2 episode 3 and portal 2. And by the way how is valve and steam connected i didnt realy catch that.And by the way how is valve and steam connected i didnt realy catch that.Took me ages to figure out what he meant as wellhow is valve and steam connected
Bravo.
Seeing as hosting the Championship is the only way Austria is ever going to qualify, I'll have to go with patriotism.
I'll just have to use those remaining three weeks to prepare for the disappointment.
Not that I usually care about soccer/football too much, but I'm still really looking forward to the whole thing. A huge event like this in your own country is bound to make for a few awesome weeks of drinking and celebrating.
I'll just have to use those remaining three weeks to prepare for the disappointment.
Not that I usually care about soccer/football too much, but I'm still really looking forward to the whole thing. A huge event like this in your own country is bound to make for a few awesome weeks of drinking and celebrating.
Holidays on weekends suck. Perfectly good days off just going to waste.
We have plenty of those this year.
We have plenty of those this year.
And it should be hardcore is what you're saying? Sick fuck.
What exactly is it that you're pointing out with that circle?
Because honestly I still can't tell what's wrong with that picture.
Because honestly I still can't tell what's wrong with that picture.
I also love how in CSI there are records on everything that's ever been sold, anywhere.zeidmaan wrote:
Yep CSI is horrible.
One episode everyone leaves "trace" on everything and cameras are everywhere. Next episode they find a body, a gun or a knife, killers clothes and stuff and they have no clue who did it. Miraculously there is no DNA or fingerprints on anything and there was no cameras anywhere near. Wtf
"The victim had his head smashed with a brick"
30 minutes pass.
"We found out this specific brick was bought in Jacksonville, on a rainy Tuesday 37 years ago by a man named..."
Yeah, right...
Edit: head != had
Well, you also picked the most insignificant arguments of my post to complain about. A lot that came after the first three points were just random things I noticed at some point during the game, I thought I made that clear. Smashing my headlights when touching a parked car at 1.5 mph for example can get somewhat annoying at night when you can't see all that great without lights.killaer wrote:
You picked the some of the most insignificant reasons to even judge the game on in your review.
Why the hell would you need food in the fridge of your safehouse if sleeping puts you back to full health?
Leaves? You want to brush through leaves when you walk through them? Dude, GTA is all concrete, where are you finding leaves/spending that much time in bushes to notice?
Why are you so concerned about beating up your car? Are you OCD or something? Yeah, when you bump into a car you can probably expect some damage to be done. As long as you drive carefully you can drive your car home in one peice easily.
I do agree with some of your points though. I'm at the part where he starts talking about florian crevic and darko and the whole revenge thing, but I have no clue what he's talking about since ou have so little information on them, and it's not brought up in the mid-game at all.
Money does tend to accumulate in your pocket quite a bit with nothing to spend it on.
You have valid points, but this review is just nitpicking at all the little itty bitty minute things that don't really matter. GTA is still a great game, the driving, shooting, etc. is a blast. I don't really see how you can be dissapointed unless you were really really REALLY into getting different haircuts and grinding for boring stat points in SA.
As I said at the beginning of my post, I intentionally only included the bad things. That doesn't mean the rest doesn't still make a good game, but that has been said enough times and I thought I'd focus on the flaws for once.
My main complaint was that the game is completely lacking a global concept. It's like it's just a demo to showcase the engine and the new features. Nothing you do really has any effect on the world around you.
You're gaining more and more money but you're not going anywhere. The missions themselves are well designed and everything, but the story just isn't gripping. Hell, there isn't even really a story. It's one mission after another without any kind of advancement. It's not just Niko, none of the characters are developing in any way. To put it short: Nothing is fucking happening. At all.
That is the main source of disappointment compared to SA. You used to have goals and ambitions. You worked towards them and could see yourself getting closer and closer. You'd have victories and setbacks. You'd advance in social status and relationships with other people.
Now you just get to know someone, do some missions for them and move on to someone else. Over and over again. The only thing that changes are the people you work for.
Yeah, sorry. I typed that when I wanted to preview the formatting of the post and forgot to edit it before submitting.
Edit: Yeah, I am.
Edit: Yeah, I am.
First off: Yes, this "review" only includes negative points about the game. That doesn't mean there's nothing good about this game, I just feel the positive aspects have been pointed out more than enough.
Also, this is not from a Rookie's point of view who has been blinded by all the praise this game got from every possible source. I have played every game in the series (well, except for Liberty City Stories, but anyway) and draw comparisons from experience.
That being said, let's get to the point.
GTA IV does not deserve the insane amounts of praise it gets.
Sure it's a great game, but scores of 10/10 are not justified.
Let me tell you why I think so:
Motivation:
Seriously, what's all this talk about those guys from Niko's past that he's trying to find? It's not until quite a few hours into the game that you get at least a tiny bit of information about who those people are and why you're trying to find them. By then it's simply too late to really get into the whole revenge thing. How am I ever supposed to identify with Niko if even I don't know what the hell he's on about.
Character development:
GTA:SA introduced those great possibilities of developing your character in pretty much any way you wanted. Working out in order to become a beefy bastard or stuffing yourself with fast food to be a fat blob, running instead of driving to improve your stamina, riding motorcycles or bikes to improve your skills, get a tattoo and change your hairstyle. All that. I loved those aspects and as far as I can tell most other people did too. They already had them developed and only needed to port them to the current engine, why drop them?
And it's not just the physical character development, but also the social one I'm missing. I'm halfway through the game and still doing nothing other than random hits on people my sponsors don't like for one reason or another. Where are the gangs I took over, the territories I gained control of? The only difference to the beginning of the story is that I'm now working for more influential people, which doesn't exactly make me any more powerful. I'm still just a low-life crook, only now I'm getting paid more. Which leads me to my next point:
Money:
As I said before, I'm about halfway through the game. What you didn't know is that there's over $300,000 on my bank account by now. Why is that? Simply because there is absolutely fucking nothing to spend it on. It's not exactly satisfying to spend 300 grand on hamburgers and a handful of clothing (see next point). It's a shame there are no more nice mansions to buy. This leaves you in no way bonded to the random apartments you got at some point in the story without any effort. Oh, and while I'm at it. If food refills your health, then why the hell is there no food in the fridge? I mean, that's what your "safehouse" should be there for. Getting your act back together.
Those three points are the ones that throw me off the most. I've been sitting around at home all day and I didn't even feel like playing. With San Andreas I couldn't stop, but I just can't seem to get involved in the story of GTA IV. It's just not going anywhere. You're not getting any closer to your goals (whatever they might be). You're not on the point of gaining any power or control over the city. Yeah, you keep on making money, but as I said, what's the point of money if there's nothing to spend it on.
I keep on comparing IV to San Andreas not just because SA is the most recent of the other games, but also because in my opinion, it is the best of the whole series so far. You knew where you wanted to go. You wanted to gain control over the city and you were getting closer to that one step at a time. Not just by regaining control of your gang, but also owning a record company and spending your money on mansions. Generally just advancing in your social (reads: criminal) status.
GTA IV has nothing of that. It's just one random mission after another, none of which really seem to take you anywhere. Niko's character is not developing in any way and neither is the whole storyline.
Anyway, on to some other things that annoy me.
Locations:
4 clothing stores? Two of which are identical? Are you kidding me? Liberty City is supposed to represent New York and there are some 4 bars, two strip-joints and a handful of fast-food restaurants. They've designed a huge city with incredible amounts of details and a little versatility when it comes to these things is too much to ask for?
On the other hand it's probably a good thing there aren't more clothes to buy since you still have that incredibly clumsy way of changing where you have to flip through every single item you have with the screen going blank for a few seconds each time.
Physics:
Back in 2000, in Hitman, you'd brush away every leave of a bush when you walked by. Now, 8 years later, in GTA IV, supposedly one of the greatest games ever created, you still walk through them like they were holographic. That's just a minor issue, but for some reason it really annoys me.
What's even worse about the physics are the collisions with vehicles. Any car will send you to the ground in a vicious hit, even if it goes only 2 mph. But it doesn't get any better if you're the one driving. You barely need to touch another car to smash your headlights and the next time you go over 20 mph your engine hood is guaranteed to go sailing over your head. It's near impossible to get from one point in the city to another without getting your car damaged unless you're willing to spend a good half hour and go with the speed of the other drivers (who still seem to have an irrational fear of going any faster than a midget in flippers).
AI:
OK, the enemies have become smarter than before. They take cover and some even seem to attack coordinately (at least the SWAT teams). But they still can't drive for shit!
If they're planning to make that left turn, they will. Regardless of the fact that you're currently only a foot to their left. And don't even get me started on streets with more than one lane. Damn, I don't feel like going 10 mph on a one mile-straight only because every other driver feels the need to randomly swerve all over the lanes for no apparent reason.
All in all I have to say GTA IV turned out to be a huge disappointment to me. They did make a few improvements compared to SA, but they just dropped way too many of the great things they introduced in that game.
For the next game in the series, I say Rockstar should take the engine of IV, the concept of San Andreas and go from there.
Also, this is not from a Rookie's point of view who has been blinded by all the praise this game got from every possible source. I have played every game in the series (well, except for Liberty City Stories, but anyway) and draw comparisons from experience.
That being said, let's get to the point.
GTA IV does not deserve the insane amounts of praise it gets.
Sure it's a great game, but scores of 10/10 are not justified.
Let me tell you why I think so:
Motivation:
Seriously, what's all this talk about those guys from Niko's past that he's trying to find? It's not until quite a few hours into the game that you get at least a tiny bit of information about who those people are and why you're trying to find them. By then it's simply too late to really get into the whole revenge thing. How am I ever supposed to identify with Niko if even I don't know what the hell he's on about.
Character development:
GTA:SA introduced those great possibilities of developing your character in pretty much any way you wanted. Working out in order to become a beefy bastard or stuffing yourself with fast food to be a fat blob, running instead of driving to improve your stamina, riding motorcycles or bikes to improve your skills, get a tattoo and change your hairstyle. All that. I loved those aspects and as far as I can tell most other people did too. They already had them developed and only needed to port them to the current engine, why drop them?
And it's not just the physical character development, but also the social one I'm missing. I'm halfway through the game and still doing nothing other than random hits on people my sponsors don't like for one reason or another. Where are the gangs I took over, the territories I gained control of? The only difference to the beginning of the story is that I'm now working for more influential people, which doesn't exactly make me any more powerful. I'm still just a low-life crook, only now I'm getting paid more. Which leads me to my next point:
Money:
As I said before, I'm about halfway through the game. What you didn't know is that there's over $300,000 on my bank account by now. Why is that? Simply because there is absolutely fucking nothing to spend it on. It's not exactly satisfying to spend 300 grand on hamburgers and a handful of clothing (see next point). It's a shame there are no more nice mansions to buy. This leaves you in no way bonded to the random apartments you got at some point in the story without any effort. Oh, and while I'm at it. If food refills your health, then why the hell is there no food in the fridge? I mean, that's what your "safehouse" should be there for. Getting your act back together.
Those three points are the ones that throw me off the most. I've been sitting around at home all day and I didn't even feel like playing. With San Andreas I couldn't stop, but I just can't seem to get involved in the story of GTA IV. It's just not going anywhere. You're not getting any closer to your goals (whatever they might be). You're not on the point of gaining any power or control over the city. Yeah, you keep on making money, but as I said, what's the point of money if there's nothing to spend it on.
I keep on comparing IV to San Andreas not just because SA is the most recent of the other games, but also because in my opinion, it is the best of the whole series so far. You knew where you wanted to go. You wanted to gain control over the city and you were getting closer to that one step at a time. Not just by regaining control of your gang, but also owning a record company and spending your money on mansions. Generally just advancing in your social (reads: criminal) status.
GTA IV has nothing of that. It's just one random mission after another, none of which really seem to take you anywhere. Niko's character is not developing in any way and neither is the whole storyline.
Anyway, on to some other things that annoy me.
Locations:
4 clothing stores? Two of which are identical? Are you kidding me? Liberty City is supposed to represent New York and there are some 4 bars, two strip-joints and a handful of fast-food restaurants. They've designed a huge city with incredible amounts of details and a little versatility when it comes to these things is too much to ask for?
On the other hand it's probably a good thing there aren't more clothes to buy since you still have that incredibly clumsy way of changing where you have to flip through every single item you have with the screen going blank for a few seconds each time.
Physics:
Back in 2000, in Hitman, you'd brush away every leave of a bush when you walked by. Now, 8 years later, in GTA IV, supposedly one of the greatest games ever created, you still walk through them like they were holographic. That's just a minor issue, but for some reason it really annoys me.
What's even worse about the physics are the collisions with vehicles. Any car will send you to the ground in a vicious hit, even if it goes only 2 mph. But it doesn't get any better if you're the one driving. You barely need to touch another car to smash your headlights and the next time you go over 20 mph your engine hood is guaranteed to go sailing over your head. It's near impossible to get from one point in the city to another without getting your car damaged unless you're willing to spend a good half hour and go with the speed of the other drivers (who still seem to have an irrational fear of going any faster than a midget in flippers).
AI:
OK, the enemies have become smarter than before. They take cover and some even seem to attack coordinately (at least the SWAT teams). But they still can't drive for shit!
If they're planning to make that left turn, they will. Regardless of the fact that you're currently only a foot to their left. And don't even get me started on streets with more than one lane. Damn, I don't feel like going 10 mph on a one mile-straight only because every other driver feels the need to randomly swerve all over the lanes for no apparent reason.
All in all I have to say GTA IV turned out to be a huge disappointment to me. They did make a few improvements compared to SA, but they just dropped way too many of the great things they introduced in that game.
For the next game in the series, I say Rockstar should take the engine of IV, the concept of San Andreas and go from there.
Go get it, you won't regret it.
Um, that wasn't supposed to rhyme.
Um, that wasn't supposed to rhyme.
Hmm, weird.
Maybe I just clicked a wrong button at some point.
Well, if the update is really on there you may consider my complaint null and void.
Good job Sony.
Maybe I just clicked a wrong button at some point.
Well, if the update is really on there you may consider my complaint null and void.
Good job Sony.
Yeah, after over 40 minutes I'm at 57%. Strangely my internet is even slower on the PS3.Funky_Finny wrote:
20 mins for a 130mb file? That's pretty good, would probably take me longer.
Not necessarily on the game disc, but basically that's what I meant. If it comes in a bundle, it should include everything you need to play. Just throw an extra CD with the update in there.buLLet_t00th wrote:
The game should have the update needed. You shouldn't have to download it.
Then again I think that's actually a pretty good idea. No current game uses up enough space to fill a whole blu-ray disc, there should always be room left for those couple hundred MB of PS3 updates. Why not just make every game include the most up-to-date version?
I wanted to buy a PS3 for quite a while now, and this was the reason I was waiting for. Now that they had a bundle out with the game I was most anticipating, I decided to get one.
So I go get it from the store, hook it up and go through some basic setups for WLAN and stuff. Then I decide I've been fooling around long enough and throw the disc in.
Alright, click the icon aaand... wait, what?
"You need to update your system in order to play this game."
Are you serious? I mean, if I bought the PS3 a couple months ago and now needed an update to play, okay. Still kinda annoying, but I could live with it. But come on! That stuff came bundled in one big box and I can't just hook it up and play?
My internet connection is pretty slow and it'll take me some 20 minutes to download the 130 MB update. And what about the (few remaining) people without internet? They'll have to go to a net-cafe, download it to a flash-drive and bring it home?
That's just pathetic.
Seems like my worries about publishers rushing release dates with the possibilities of future patches in the back of their heads are coming true.
I know, in this case it's a Sony- and not a game-related issue, but it's just another step in that direction.
So I go get it from the store, hook it up and go through some basic setups for WLAN and stuff. Then I decide I've been fooling around long enough and throw the disc in.
Alright, click the icon aaand... wait, what?
"You need to update your system in order to play this game."
Are you serious? I mean, if I bought the PS3 a couple months ago and now needed an update to play, okay. Still kinda annoying, but I could live with it. But come on! That stuff came bundled in one big box and I can't just hook it up and play?
My internet connection is pretty slow and it'll take me some 20 minutes to download the 130 MB update. And what about the (few remaining) people without internet? They'll have to go to a net-cafe, download it to a flash-drive and bring it home?
That's just pathetic.
Seems like my worries about publishers rushing release dates with the possibilities of future patches in the back of their heads are coming true.
I know, in this case it's a Sony- and not a game-related issue, but it's just another step in that direction.
Freaky tiny lizard keeps visiting me when I go out for a smoke.
Edit: I can't stop screwing up my BBcode today.
Edit: I can't stop screwing up my BBcode today.
Right, and that has been said by whom?LaidBackNinja wrote:
Actually, the blast in that scene has been said to be the most REALISTIC depiction of a nuclear blast ever shown in a film. You obviously know jack shit about physics. They burned because of the heat radiation, which travels WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT. The blast wave that blows everything away travels much slower.CrazeD wrote:
Well, it makes no sense to be turned to charcoal before the blast even hits you.liquidat0r wrote:
Have you ever been in one? I assume not, and in which case, how do you know?
EDIT:Wow, that must have made no sense at all without watching 1&2 first.avman633 wrote:
Never saw Terminator 1 or 2. Barely remember the 3rd one
Terminator 2 rocks. You guys fail epically.
I mean, firstly I was missing that distinctive double-flash you always hear about, but that's the least of them all.
Of course there is thermal radiation with a nuclear explosion, but do you think that it actually makes you go up in flames, screaming? Not just burn you, no, really light you on fire? Oh, and all that without doing any significant damage to other things like the playground equipment.
And then comes the blast wave, blowing the ash-statue-like remains of the humans to pieces. Except for the burning chick of course, who still hangs around screaming. No, the blast wave has other plans for her, like ripping the burnt flesh off of her skeleton, which just keeps standing there, clinging to the (perfectly intact) chain-link fence.
Yeah, sounds accurate to me.
Edit: BBcode failure.
Wow.
That was probably the worst depiction of a nuclear blast I have ever seen.
That was probably the worst depiction of a nuclear blast I have ever seen.