or example, if you want to learn a new language but don't have the privilege of native speakers to learn from, an interactive game where you practice the language, learn more about the culture, and even have the opportunity to speak or write the language and get immediate feedback on your performance offers a unique…

Yes, I'm complaining about what a thing is. I find it ugly, because its nature is apparent to me. That's what a complaint is. I also find it highly interesting that video game developers would like Dubai because I feel like it appeals very much to a video game mentality.

I would snap a picture and post it as a contest to Lifehacker, then let someone else figure it out.

I'm talking about how it looks. A city built from 1970 on simply does NOT have an architectural history. It has no neighbourhood development. It has no redefinition, no urban remodelling. It hasn't had the time to become a city. Compare pictures of Dubai with pictures of Paris, or of New York, or of Rio. Or of any…

There are almost NO other cities in existence that are as young as Dubai is now. It's about on par with Las Vegas, which doesn't have a history or significant heritage any older than maybe a hundred years. And really only came into existence in... oh say the 1930s.

Also, a shooter BY NATURE is shallow. It's a shallow form of entertainment. It's very definition is as a one-dimensional tool to allow you to kill vicariously.

It's a little early to call the place "history-less." Give it time and it will have it's own history

Interestingly enough, one could look at Dubai as the first "history-less" city. But that's what makes it all the more ugly. It's pure development with no human habitation. It's sparse and spread out, moving from one concrete lot to another between enormous buildings. Without architectural heritage or pressure to…

I really hope that one day Lifehacker does a post about taking your time with things called "why you shouldn't look for time-savers".

Yeah, it's strange to think about evolution as a dual process. You learn to think we are this way because it was selected for through trial and error, but maybe an accident just propagated randomly and we evolved to use it.

Oh yeah! That's where I heard it!

On the other hand, we only have one mouth, so facial symmetry isn't a necessity. And your claim about symmetry is odd, considering we have a single nose structure, but with divided nostrils. Wouldn't symmetry as a principle be just as likely to dictate two separate nasal structures? It's pretty firmly developed that…

An other example, funnily enough, might be the Stradivarius violins, the perfect harmonics of which have been attributed not just to the master craftsmanship of Antonio Stradivari and his two sons, but also to the wood they were made from.

Yeah no offence, but you're way off about King. He's at least growing and maturing as an author. His last book was that time-travel epic about the JFK assassination, and he even wrote a non-fiction work about writing itself, which was pretty good. If he wants to revisit old ideas in new stories, he's earned that.

Are you kidding me? Stephen King is still putting out good books. And his writing is a fair bit more mature than it used to be. Maybe he draws in less of the twelve-year old crowd, but it's still good.

haha Alan Moore. Still the ultimate real-life troll.

Calling this "philosophical" is actually both ignorant of what philosophers do, and fairly offensive to how rigorous good philosophy actually is.

I don't know. I mean, when new games are a 65 dollar purchase, it seems useful to delineate.

A more accurate review would be to tell us those things, but also who would enjoy the game the most. A little madlib or something that indicates whether the game is a YES for complex, adult gamers, or a YES for 12 year old shooter fans.

I'm pretty sure the answer is "Practice, practice, practice".