If there's a re-skin that allows you to go into battle in hot pink armor, MAYBE I'd be interested. But there's better also be day-one DLC to change your character's head to Hello Kitty, too . . .

How about they also have broadband-jammers that prevent the use of giant robots and guns and so all these infantrymen have to ride horses and use swords? See, I can retcon, too.

Oh, and: Giant sci-fi fleet pulls into orbit, blinking into existence out of nowhere . . .

Nope. Not seeing anything here but another tired, brown sci-fi shooter.

I find enough to appeal to me. There are ample marginal-cases where the mayhem is administered in a sufficiently cartoony, unreal way to appeal to me. "Wonderful 101" for instance. Or "Dragon's Crown" or "Muramasa". Or anything Mario or Smash Brothers-esque.

Yeah, no: I kind of resist the notion that, as someone who doesn't find pretend-murder fun, that *I'M* the weird/stupid one.

Raise your Internet hands if you first learned about the DEW Line from the MST3K episode "The Deadly Mantis"?

So . . . guys: At the Washington Naval Yard right now is a guy who's decided to not so much play GTA/Saints Row as *live* it. I would imagine most normally-ordered human animals are opposed to this. And yet we are supposed to find this game to be a delightful source of frivolous levity.

Ye-ESS!! I am an unapologetic ioS gamer* and this is terrific.

*Rumor Control on Amazing Spider-Man 2, the Daredevil Reboot and Indiana Jones 5!*

A lot of fun can be had by just adjusting the punctuation.

How about autonomous weapons are fine, so long as they're only used to fight *other* autonomous weapons?

Any Eve Online people here? Specifically want to ask: Is all that 'documentation' stuff they sell online worth it? (I.e. galaxy maps, system books, magazines). Not necessarily a game aid, but just as eye candy?

I don't believe you. It's just more of the unreal "Christianity was all about freedom and justice until just a few years ago!" bullshit. Bears no connection with history.

I'm LOOKING at the data from UNODOC right now. And it DOES NOT support their conclusion. They either didn't use the data they said they did OR there was something very hinky about their intermediary constructs 'belief in hell' and/or 'belief in heaven'.

Here:

Boo f*cking hoo. Poor put upon 98% of humanity. Cry me a river. Play me the tiniest of violins.

I posit that the data they used was not the data they cited. Here's world murder rates, 2010:

*Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.*

This is their data. Someone want to explain to me how it in any way supports their conclusions?