There are literally 100's of "fly and survive" games, and an additional 100's of games that use Mario-like blocks, and even MARIO AS A CHARACTER (Cat Mario, Unfair Mario), and yet its Flappy Bird; a free iOS game, that suddenly makes it unheard of that a game would feature the same thing as others and similar game…

How is he being a baby? He didn't like the press he was receiving (because nearly EVERYONE was just flaming his game), any of the very sudden attention he had, and he decided to pull the game.

There are literally 100's of "fly and survive" games, and an additional 100's of games that use Mario-like blocks, and even MARIO AS A CHARACTER (Cat Mario, Unfair Mario), and yet its Flappy Bird; a free iOS game, that suddenly makes it unheard of that a game would feature the same thing as others and similar game…

Dude. Props to you. I've been saying this for the past week. The fact that Kotaku and so many other video game sites jumped on this "RIPOFF NOT A REAL GAME" hatred for Flappy bird is insane.

Literally no "ethical, creative app designer" came out in hatred of this video game.

"but once mainstream American press noticed it, the game became another catalyst for video gaming's neverending treehouse debate over what constitutes a real game and whether a mobile title deserves a place in the discussion."

This is going to be a long post, and most likely everyones going to give me flak for it, but I just couldn't not type this up:

I might be wrong here (i don't know NCAA too well), but wouldn't the 2004 champion be Oklahoma if USC was stripped, since they actually MADE it to the championship?

Who actually LIKED that intro? A random music video by Stevie Nicks? Just felt out of place, and set the tone for a disappointing finale.

I've never had an encounter with the far lands, but on the X360 version, the game just ended at an invisible wall.

The original statement was that this article was hating on a breed just due to the articles assertation that the place in California was infested with pitbulls and a terrorzone. I have no problem believing that place could very well be somewhere where pitbulls are handled poorly and thus are dangerous if you see them…

But most bad owners/dog fighters choose pit bulls.

Most people, if walking down an alley or walking down a street, if they see someone they deem "dangerous" or, if you're extremely racist or something, a "gangster" or "thug" or whatever, then that person will try and walk the other way and steer clear, its the same thing with Pitbulls.

The real reason I commented on this is because someone got offended at the fact that they calld that section of New Mexico a pitbull-infested terrorzone. Now, for all I know, it IS infested with pitbulls that might not be nice dogs, and also a shitty place to live.

I believe it. Pitbulls are awesome, and I have a friend that has two and they're both the softest dogs I've ever seen. On the flip side of that, I've seen pitbulls that are just mean and will bite given a chance, whether due to bad ownership or something wrong with him (one of them had something in his brain)

So, if you're walking across the street, and a stray pitbull (or any dog) snarls at you and begins to chase after you, are you going to wait until after he attacks you to find the owner and club him, or do you want to have a tool used to keep violent dogs at bay?

What you're saying makes no sense. There are plenty of places in the world that are considered extremely dangerous "terrorzones" due to gangs or crime rates. He's just doing that with a breed of dog.

They have a terrible reputation due to how some owners mistreat them, yes, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they have a bad rep because the bad ones attack people and can hurt you.

What's the point of censoring the FB image if you provide both of their names in the article?

That isn't what I said..