Quote from: [FC]Elite on September 28, 2012, 07:50:56 PM
I hope Baltimore wins the AL East, making it easier for the Rangers.

What's this about winning the division, now?

TimeSplitters fan, eh, Gdh?

Anyways, I haven't found anything regarding a release date.

Quote from: Joseph on October 02, 2012, 10:41:34 PM
thanks SF!

Watch out. We're in your corner.

I think a St. Lous-San Francisco NLCS is quite possible if the Giants defeat the Reds--Atlanta appears beatable in the one-game-set and Washington has slowed its once impressive pace.

Quote from: SleepKiller on October 01, 2012, 12:58:54 PM
My two cents, none of us are actually qualified to discuss on the matter. Unless one of you just happens to have a degree in psychology?

Because we all know that experts in a given field all widely agree on every subject.  /s

With that said, you do have a point... but to extrapolate from that point, unless Mart's parents have a degree in psychology, they're not qualified (to render an opinion concerning the aggregate).

Quote from: {Recruit}FrenchFry on October 01, 2012, 04:51:28 AM
LOL! no one is really answering the quistion he asked! Yes, i would let my child play battlefront I think its a good game to start off on because you can always pick like zam to be the republic and just shoot droids! Also there isnt any blood and they can respawn so its probly more like Lazer Tag or something rather than playing with blood and you are done for the session/mission if you die. Hope ppl actully answer the quistion really intresting forum

I realized I didn't explain why my original post in this thread was a reduction to absurdity, so while I would argue that the information to answer the question was there, to make the jump from that information to my position would require extraordinary reading comprehension as well as making a couple of logical jumps.

Anyways...

(I am just a nineteen year old college student, so take this with a grain of salt.)

I do not believe that the average parent of a child who plays video games believes that his or child will become a serial killer, hence the reduction to absurdity (what I said boils down to discussing that since action A [playing video games] wouldn't lead to extraordinarily bad consequence B [becoming a serial killer] that arguments against action A are moot).  But they're not moot, they're just without teeth.  That a parent wants the best for child seems to be above argument; however, parents don't always know exactly what is best for their child.  Parents see new technologies that they never had when growing up (brb, walking up the hill to school for both directions) and, it is my--lay--opinion that they think that they grew up okay without these technologies (either they didn't have the world wide web during their youth or its infrastructure hadn't been as widely implemented as it is today) which could potentially lead to them believing that it is best if their progeny grows up without becoming overly dependent on them. 

Quote from: Kit Fisto on October 01, 2012, 08:17:14 AM
From the things on the news and from what I hear this is the "main attraction" as it were to going and killing people in real life. "Well when I killed those 20 people they didn't die they just went back to spawn!" You can look at it in a good light or a bad light. Personally I think some games influence child thought but most don't. You could say the same thing about Lego Star Wars!
[...] It's just Star Wars. Nothing in it has ever happened. You won't get biased to Germans like you would playing a WWII game and killing the Nazis. [...]

I understand--indeed, I agree with it--your point regarding fantasy violence, but the argument that someone would be "biased" against "Germans" because that person "play[ed] a WWII game and kill[ed] the Nazis" that appear in that video game is a silly one.  Most people who are unable to realize that people of German heritage are not necessarily Nazis are too young to play the video games that these (fictional) Nazis appear in.  If you were referring to those people who are unable to draw distinctions between the real and the virtual, see my post infra.

Well, the video game is rated "T," which, according to the E.S.R.B., means that the game is suitable for the teenage demographic.  There was a thread last spring about a similar topic (it was about violence in television programming, so the concepts are remarkably similar), and I'll merely adapt what I wrote in that thread:

People are influenced by electronic media, sure.  However, when Lee Harvey Oswald was killed (on live television), did people go out and engage in a killing spree?  (This might be before your parents' time, though.)  Although this rhetorical question is something along the lines of a reduction to absurdity, I maintain that it is the crux of your parents' argument.  Perhaps such a person is the type of person who is so mentally unstable that anything else could have set him or her off.  So this "undue" influence of video games on these people could be replaced by something else, such as peers or society as a whole (see, e.g., the concept of modeling).

Quote from: Regent on September 29, 2012, 02:28:36 AM
Nah, he's just restin'.


(If anyone gets the reference you will restore my faith in humanity).

Ctrl + F "faith in humanity," faith in humanity restored.

If I ate breakfast, of the two options, I'd take pancakes.

But, let's be reality, syrup is the reason. Yum, yum, yum.

Jets. I'm from New York and the Giants are too stupid to know what sport they play. 

...

The season is over.

Quote from: [FC]Elite on September 28, 2012, 07:37:47 PM
I don't think Detroit is that good, the White Sox are more dangerous.

Detroit has a better 1-2 punch, with Verlander, followed by Scherzer, leading the league in Ks and Fister a suitable number three--you can win the World Series with just three or so pitchers, if everything goes out right.  I also think they have a more potent lineup than the White Sox.

Quote from: Kit Fisto on September 28, 2012, 07:29:07 PM
The Los Angeles Dodgers. The Los Angeles part is all you need to have to respect them!

Well, you haven't been mathematically eliminated... yet.

Quote from: [FC]Elite on September 28, 2012, 07:04:10 PM
2 Times Defending AL Champions Texas Rangers

Quote from: [FC]Elite on September 28, 2012, 07:19:11 PM
Yankee suck, they will get owned by Yu Darvish and Matt Harrison

Yeah, about that... I don't think they'll make it past the Tigers. I think Detroit is the scariest team from the American League going into the playoffs (the Angels, who I picked to win the West, probably would have a better ability to make some noise, but they have a tough road in front of them).

The NL West division champion San Francisco Giants.

Okay, so my school's networking policy allots each student just over 100GB of bandwidth a month across various devices (so that my computer and my Xbox both use the same source of internet)--I'm wondering how much bandwidth is taken up by playing Star Wars Battlefront?

Quote from: jdee-barc on September 19, 2012, 06:18:12 PM
Lol alright The amount of bickering surrounding a video game hack is concerning. ,  it's a video game guys. Live and let live.

Expressed in other terms:

Quote from: Jamman on September 19, 2012, 03:51:28 PM
Because most games have radar such as CoD, I don't play them. Thanks a lot you lame people who produced the radar hack. you sure did make a great improvement in the modding field. I give the finger to the creators. 

This absolutely has nothing to do with either the topic or your point, but, generally, you will only show up on the radar in the Call of Duty games for two circumstances: (i) if you fire a weapon that does not have a silencer (or suppressor in Black Ops) you will appear on the minimap as a static dot or (ii) if the other team has a UAV or Spy Plane in the air you will appear as a more dynamic red dot but you can become invisible to them with certain perks and in certain games you can even take out the aircraft.