Chris

That actually looks quite nice. I don't think I'd ever use it for gaming, but seems like a good thing to have at work, when I'm using a computer all day for mundane tasks.

Yeah, so that gives them creative control, but not ownership. Similarly, a CEO of a company is in charge of making decisions that a company will execute, but he doesn't actually own the company's assets. Presumably there's some kind of end date for that control on the part of West and Zampella--after all, they would eventually leave the company sometime, even if it were due to death or something, so it's hard for me to see how they would continue to exercise that control when they're no longer under Activision's employment.

That's a pretty surprising claim. Obviously I don't know what their employment contract says but since Activision owns Infinity Ward and Call of Duty, I'd be overwhelmingly surprised if two individuals somehow owned the "Modern Warfare" brand. Edit: Reading a bit more, it seems like they're alleging they had creative (not legal) control of the Modern Warfare brand, contractually. They're suing for ownership of it now, not because they already owned it as per their contract, but because they believe they're entitled to it as damages. It's like how when you sue a company for a million dollars, it's not that you had the right to the million dollars before, it's that you believe the injustice you suffered is worth that amount. I'd be very surprised if they ended up walking away with Modern Warfare, but it's probably standard practice to ask for a lot more than you think you're actually going to get, so when you end up settling in the middle, you're still left with a lot.

They're certainly due their money, but I can't see how two guys could possibly be due the entire Call of Duty franchise. That's ludicrous. They weren't even the only founders of Infinity Ward, let alone the only creators of the games.

Everything you have written in this post is correct.

Jake said the "Boost Remo" part, then I said "Is that you?" We joined forces to create a robot (voice).

Yep!

Oh, right. I always just use the "new" post button and jump straight to the latest post in a thread, so I rarely see the top of the page in Idle Banter posts.

YOU'RE WRONG. It's by Dan Lee. He did the old forum art too, before the forums were redesigned. It was originally a barren post-apocalyptic wasteland, with a tattered Idle Thumbs banner. When we polished up and relaunched the forums, he replaced the art with its current depiction of a gleaming metropolis of the future. I believe the old forum style is actually still applied to threads with no posts past a certain date? I'm not exactly sure. I've definitely come across the old forum on accident a few times. You could probably find some examples somehow.

I've played a few hours of the BC2 campaign so far, and yeah it's definitely a full-on, high-budget narrative campaign. It's interrupted MUCH too frequently by cutscenes for my taste, but generally speaking it seems pretty good. This level of destructibility in a single-player campaign also adds a lot.

Yo!

This new wizard looks quite shitty.

It's not really "any more," the big single-player campaign is pretty new to the series. It's just been part of the Bad Company games, and I didn't play the first one.

Maybe I'll try this multiplayer. I started playing the single-player, but I've never really played a Battlefield game before.

I don't think I'd call Twain "hilarious" -- there are lots of funny things in his books but he's not going for a laugh a page or anything. He's absolutely great though and has aged very well.

Welcome, dudes!

While it doesn't connect to the Cage thing really, Jake also looks about 10 years younger than usual in that picture, which independently amuses me.

It's called "Last Stand." And yep, it has built-in voice chat. It's automatically enabled as far as I can tell. I believe it goes through Games for Windows Live. I already had a headset set up for other games and I didn't have to mess with any options or anything.

So what level did you get to?

Yeah, I don't really remember ever checking our score at the end. It seems more like Tetris or something, where I'm concerned with notching the level counter up more the score counter.

The real answer is that it's valid regardless, because it happened. But to more specifically answer what you're wondering, yes I believe that is in keeping with the game's rules. There are multiple missions in which you are given something to exchange for another thing, and as long as you end up with the thing you're trying to get, the game (and usually the NPCs too) doesn't care if you actually used the thing you were given or not. That's why, in so many cases, you're able to simply kill a quest NPC and take the thing you needed from their corpse, rather than trading or paying them or whatever.

By that I meant, if board games happen later in the day. For me, early DOW2 is better.

Tomorrow I might be booked playing board games with Jake and Scoops, but if that turns out to be a little later in the day, I'm definitely down for morning Last Standing.

IT WAS NEVER A WII EXCLUSIVE IT WAS ALWAYS CONFIRMED FOR PC PC IS A PLATFORM TOO GODDAMNIT RAAARRGHHH

Yeah, for sure. It's not worth wasting bullets on animals when you can just knife them. (Fuck animals.)