Snake being in there was part was a gag. It all just underlined how silly the concept was, which played into what Smash Bros was aiming for. It worked out fine, and maybe this will too, I'm just nervous about the execution of the game.

It's true that these guys were certainly memorable. I remember the first time I picked up the game and was just starting the battle with the first colossi, the Minotaur, and I shot an arrow in its back and it slowly turned around. It was the scariest moment in gaming for me. You genuinely felt that you were up against…

If I remember that commercial correctly the viewer saw Lightning's sword at the very end of the commercial. Which, if correct, means that third party characters will be in this game. This makes the possible game a lot better.

You're not providing context, you're muddying the water. The authors of the post were correct when they said "a lot" and "so much", because they are comparing Defense spending to the rest of the budget, not GDP, which has nothing to do with the actual budget.

You're kidding, right? The jet hasn't flown in any combat missions, was designed for an enemy that no longer exists; and our current fleet has the resources to combat current, and foreseeable threats—not to mention one heck of a nuclear arsenal.

This is true, but at what point to do come to terms with the fact that you might be spending too much?

I'm confused as to what exactly the point of the graphic and argument you are trying to make. Yes, as a percentage of GDP, the amount we spend on Defense is 4%; however, as a portion of revenue generated, and as a percentage of the federal budget—the actual source of where the money comes from and not what is…

I can see the inclination to assume that it will be Pokemon Grey, with the mascot being Kyurem (especially because Kyurem is missing moves); however, there's no reason that has to be the route they take. In terms of expansions there's no reason based on history to assume that it is the leader of the trio that makes…

It's about that time for the release of either the third installment or the third remake, which I am actually more looking forward to than Gray. However, Gamefreak has been on a roll dishing out the bad spin-off games. It could very well be this generation's Battle Revolution.

Okay, how exactly are they a threat to our existence? Machines don't reproduce, so there's a lot of doubt that they are going to be taking ever more space; and I've already said that their energy needs are so different than ours that it's very likely that we won't be competing for energy resources: while we would have…

It's not stupid because it doesn't fit into my view, the premise of these films are stupid because it doesn't make sense, the actions taken by both sides flies in the face of more rational actions; and while like I said humans are prone to act irrationally because we the imperfect result of evolution, a machine…

I do read a lot of sci-fi and the premise of many them are fairly ridiculous. Skynet, to stick with your example, is supposedly a super intelligent machine that sees humans a threat, but any super intelligent or purely rational being would realize that such isn't the case.

Okami really should get remade. With the Playstation Move Controller and the Kinect the game has a chance now to reach a larger audience with it's sheer awesomeness.

You realize sci-fi is different in that the author controls the story and predetermines what will happen. There's very little reason why machines would want to turn on people, seeing how both groups take up very different resources, besides space, and they have far more options than we do.

I have my issues with leadership and civilian rights in Dubai, but I have to give them credit for sheer ambition. I wish we had similar ambition here in the US. Instead our cities and infrastructure is falling down, and the only thing our leadership seemingly wants to do is speed that up.

I can't envision why that would be opening a can of worms, or why even if that was the case that would necessarily be a bad thing. The idea of confining art to certain mediums seems antithetical to art itself.

Why should form dictate what is or isn't art, when any given form is simply the subjected choice used by the artist to express their vision? Pictures, sounds, words, linguistics are just things artist can manipulate those things to create art, there is no reason why an artist has to be bound by them.

A movie and film are different, just as a video games purely meant to generate profit is different than a video game that thrives to make a statement. Merely capturing moments on film doesn't make it a movie or art, that requires actual direction, editing, and subjectively placing it in context. Similarly, lets take a…

I'm holding those up because those are examples of what I would say are art in the video game medium. I wouldn't consider Pong a piece of art, but rather solely a game; however, not all paintings, pieces of music, or pieces of literature are inherently art, some are purely commercial. In the same vein just because…

I've never understood the argument that video games are not art. I feel as if people who come to this conclusion have an idea what video games are (and a very generic definition of "art") and proceed to claim from on high that video are not art.