http://gamingtrend.com
October 31, 2014, 08:46:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
121  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Some GTAIV questions on: October 14, 2009, 09:04:07 PM

Quote from: Brendan on October 14, 2009, 03:57:02 PM

In my vague recollection, there were only two people that truly merited the effort:

Spoiler for Hiden:
What's-his-name with the trunk full of guns and what's-her-name who could call the cops off if you got in a jam.

It's worth noting that The Lost and Damned expansion doesn't have any of the relationship obligation issues.
Spoiler for Hiden:
Trunk full of guns is indeed useful, but I got the most out of Dwayne, who will send his two pals for backup if he likes you.  I never dated any of the perk girls, and anyway thought call-off-the-cops girl sounded like a party pooper.
Regarding TLatD, calling your pals frequently to ride backup with you would upgrade their combat abillities and, IIRC, weapons.  Socializing of a sort, but definitely not the PITA that was "get here (two islands away) in an hour (3 ingame minutes), or I'm going to be pissed anyway".
I think everyone should at least see GTAIV.
122  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Older movies that caught you by surprise on: October 14, 2009, 03:50:58 AM
I caught A Touch of Evil last night, and quite enjoyed it (particularly Orsen Wells).
I also picked up The Thin Man from the library, and might watch it tonight.
123  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [WTF?] 4-month old baby declared obese, denied insurance coverage on: October 13, 2009, 07:13:44 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on October 13, 2009, 04:27:38 PM

Quote from: Toe on October 13, 2009, 12:20:25 PM

Quote from: Gratch on October 13, 2009, 03:34:35 AM

The insurance company changed their mind.  Kudos to them for applying some common sense to the situation.

Me thinks it had little to do with common sense and more to do with the political climate. No kudos for them.

RuperT's makes a noteworthy point about the parents' culpability, though.  If they didn't want to risk having an overweight baby, maybe the mother should have wasted less money of prenatal vitamins and spent it instead on whiskey and Virginia Slims.

-Autistic Angel
You've come a long way, baby.   icon_neutral
124  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [WTF?] 4-month old baby declared obese, denied insurance coverage on: October 13, 2009, 05:28:25 AM

Quote from: Gratch on October 13, 2009, 02:30:45 AM

Quote from: RuperT on October 13, 2009, 01:29:12 AM

Quote from: Gratch on October 12, 2009, 11:28:57 PM

Quote from: RuperT on October 12, 2009, 10:14:39 PM

Quote
Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.
I interpreted this to mean that Hoss is currently covered, in case he should break a heel and fall down a flight of stairs.  It seems to me that the family is in fact the party trying to save a buck.
I have a big kid, too, and I personally think it's a pretty stupid criteria for underwriting, but if Mom doesn't worry enough about it to take the tit out a little quicker, then I won't either.  The guy's a news anchor; it's an "evil mosquito" story.

While I get your point (I interpreted the article a little differently the first time, but can see how your angle makes some sense), that's one of the stupidest things I've read here in a long time.

Would you care to discuss what aspect of my statement you find so stupid, or is it too emotional for you?  I mean that seriously, kids are a touchy subject.  Tits are too, for that matter.
To clarify, if a couple of pounds are keeping them in a "pretty freaking disturbing situation" and preventing adequate health coverage for their baby, is it so insipid for me to suggest that they might monitor the baby's intake for a couple of months and reapply?  Does "considering an appeal" seem the most appropriate response for concerned folks in a real parenting crisis?  I don't think so; frightened parents do what they must, in spite of the tears. 
Is it a shitty system where they have to jump through such an absurd and arbitrary hoop?  Yes.  Yes, it is.


Nearly every doctor will tell you that the best thing for babies - especially breastfeeding babies - is for them to eat as much as they can for the first 6 months.  They eat what their bodies need to grow and, frankly, chubby babies are healthier babies  Artificially limiting an infant's food intake so they actually lose weight during that period basically runs counter to what nearly every doctor will tell new parents about feeding their youngun and is a pretty ludicrous idea.  Doubly so when it's being done to jump through an insurance loophole.

I also think that's the best thing for babies, and that's what we did.  Some people might think it better to decrease the rate of weight gain if it would secure insured health care for their baby.  I, too, think that would be stupid.  However, it's their choice instead of mine, and that's what I actually meant by the remark in question - not that I thought that was the way to go. 
125  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [WTF?] 4-month old baby declared obese, denied insurance coverage on: October 13, 2009, 01:29:12 AM

Quote from: Gratch on October 12, 2009, 11:28:57 PM

Quote from: RuperT on October 12, 2009, 10:14:39 PM

Quote
Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.
I interpreted this to mean that Hoss is currently covered, in case he should break a heel and fall down a flight of stairs.  It seems to me that the family is in fact the party trying to save a buck.
I have a big kid, too, and I personally think it's a pretty stupid criteria for underwriting, but if Mom doesn't worry enough about it to take the tit out a little quicker, then I won't either.  The guy's a news anchor; it's an "evil mosquito" story.

While I get your point (I interpreted the article a little differently the first time, but can see how your angle makes some sense), that's one of the stupidest things I've read here in a long time.
Would you care to discuss what aspect of my statement you find so stupid, or is it too emotional for you?  I mean that seriously, kids are a touchy subject.  Tits are too, for that matter.
To clarify, if a couple of pounds are keeping them in a "pretty freaking disturbing situation" and preventing adequate health coverage for their baby, is it so insipid for me to suggest that they might monitor the baby's intake for a couple of months and reapply?  Does "considering an appeal" seem the most appropriate response for concerned folks in a real parenting crisis?  I don't think so; frightened parents do what they must, in spite of the tears. 
Is it a shitty system where they have to jump through such an absurd and arbitrary hoop?  Yes.  Yes, it is.
126  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS: War Memorial with Cross Violates Separation? on: October 12, 2009, 10:31:10 PM
The only sticky part about this in my view is the involvement of veterans.  Would the Fed be justified in providing spiritual succor for specific groups of veterans?  What is the constitutional status of Army chaplains?  Are they only appropriate in the field?  Is this not a congruent issue?
127  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [WTF?] 4-month old baby declared obese, denied insurance coverage on: October 12, 2009, 10:14:39 PM
Quote
Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.
I interpreted this to mean that Hoss is currently covered, in case he should break a heel and fall down a flight of stairs.  It seems to me that the family is in fact the party trying to save a buck.
I have a big kid, too, and I personally think it's a pretty stupid criteria for underwriting, but if Mom doesn't worry enough about it to take the tit out a little quicker, then I won't either.  The guy's a news anchor; it's an "evil mosquito" story.
128  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [WTF?] 4-month old baby declared obese, denied insurance coverage on: October 12, 2009, 08:27:55 PM
Fat babies are either higher risk or not.  This insurance company apparently thinks they are.  If they're wrong, they're losing money from another premium, and this is not good business for them.
Quote
Health insurance reform measures are trying to do away with such denials that come from a process called "underwriting."
Lolwut?  I'm no insurance expert, but this sounds like trying to "reform" automobiles by putting wings and propellers on them.

Finally, give me an effin' break with all the references on that page to this poor couples "plight".  This isn't spina bifida.  I don't find this tragic. 
129  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: You've lost that loooovin' feeeeelin'...whoa....that looooovin' feeeeeeelin'... on: October 12, 2009, 08:00:39 PM

Quote from: Kevin Grey on October 12, 2009, 07:20:11 PM

Quote from: PeteRock on October 12, 2009, 07:08:31 PM

No job.  No money.  No new games.  I first need to cope with what I have.  Like I said, I really want Batman.  So much so that I'd rather play it than anything in my backlog, but if my wife were to come home from work and find me in the living room with a cold beer in my hand, playing a new videogame, even if she didn't mind or care, I'd feel like a piece of irresponsible garbage.  I could have picked up a used copy in the Trade forum for $40, including shipping, but for some reason it just feels "wrong."  I'd never be able to look my wife in the eye.  My integrity wouldn't allow it.

Sell stuff.  Seriously- just sell the game that aren't doing it for you.  If you really want to come back to them in a year or two you'll probably be able to rebuy them for $10-15 used.  Or just burn through the really short ones (Mirror's Edge and CoD5 can both be finished in 5-6 hours.  Gears 2 is probably 8-10 hours and you probably don't have more than 5 hours of Bioshock left) and then sell them so you can buy Batman.  I'd place Batman well above most of the stuff in your backlog.  
Right on.  Also, I think you might re-evaluate your distaste for rentals (particularly monthly plans like Gamefly or Blockbuster where you keep one game or movie out at all times; it's been a real boon for my "latest hotness" problem).
Definitely try Batman, especially as I recall you enjoying ass-kicking brutality in the Bourne game.  This ain't no damn Michael Keaton! 
Finally, I suspect your guilt will be constant until you're employed again.  Maybe limit gaming to weekends or evening (ie, "unproductive") hours.
130  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: October 02, 2009, 06:05:54 PM

Quote from: Doopri on October 02, 2009, 05:55:18 PM

Quote
Please re-explain why this woman's experience "is not a moral issue".  I truly don't understand why you would assert that it isn't.

brendan im guessing (mostly from his response to my post) rupert meant in wasnt a "moral issue" in the sense that all bureaucracy is going to have regulations and norms about what is payed for where, how and when.  in this particular case, the insurance company obviously tried to screw the woman out of something.  but generally speaking, in certain schemes of care this could happen by the nature of a bureaucracy.
Yes, that's exactly it.  I wandered in the weeds a bit trying to refine and express my ideas, but in the end it wasn't a very hefty point and not worth spending much time polishing.
131  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: October 02, 2009, 04:51:33 AM

Quote from: Doopri on October 02, 2009, 01:50:24 AM

market principles have only a marginal (hehehe i made a joke smile) impact on health care because the "product" is highly inelastic.  "increasing supply" is also incredibly difficult.  this may be shocking, but medical schools DO NOT ACCEPT EVERYONE WHO APPLIES.  frankly, i think this miiiiiiiight be a good thing.

i do agree that bill standardization is necessary.  i will tell you this though.  the way that many large corporations maintain cost and billing standardization is by negotiating long term contracts, and not via the market system.
I agree wholeheartedly.  This product is, and I guess always has been, a bitch.  Hell, we had to invent a lottery system to pay for it!

Quote from: Doopri on October 02, 2009, 01:50:24 AM

Quote
Would you expect your proposed system to deny their services to people who don't need them?  In other words, could it impose eligibility criteria on premium or emergency treatment?  If so, there will always be analogous ambiguities in triage guidelines, that's all I'm saying.

and as far as the case of this woman.  i think what you are injecting here isnt very genuine.  the woman WAS IN NO WAY DENIED CARE at the ER.  she wasnt turned away.  the doctors and nurses at the er made the determination that this was "worth it."  it was a bureaucrat, months after the fact, who decided it wasnt.  now perhaps youre implying that in a govt run system, the ER doctors will go to special classes at medical school, on how to properly deny care at the er to save the tax payers a few bucks.  maybe that would be the triage dilemma of a government run health care plan.  but frankly, i think thats a bit insane on your part.
It might be genuinely half-baked, hadn't it?  Look, I missed the thing about how the insurance company reversed itself, and I didn't mean denying care.  Let me turn this thing down a little bit.  I at least mishandled the 'triage' metaphor.  How insane would I be to say instead, "Any bureaucracy will make a dickhead move"?  You'd at least get a nasty letter for having a wart removed at the FedER, I bet.
132  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 Reviews on: October 02, 2009, 12:39:10 AM

Quote from: Eseell on October 01, 2009, 10:50:24 PM

Quote from: DamageInc on October 01, 2009, 05:53:09 PM

The ending is hilarious though, during credits and ending audio disk after credits .

Spoiler for Hiden:
Excerpts from Hulk

There are also
Spoiler for Hiden:
two more funny audio logs that unlock after the end of the game. One with Deadpool and another with Hulk.

Spoiler for Hiden:
133  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: October 01, 2009, 09:09:32 PM

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 01:02:01 PM

Quote from: RuperT on October 01, 2009, 08:07:33 AM


Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 05:15:58 AM

A better question is why you think this isn't a significant indictment of the current system.
Because every other feasible system will also have similar misinterpretations of emergency payment guidelines.

Why do you assume that's the case?
The contrast between the binary nature of accounting and the protean nature of medicine.

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 01:02:01 PM

Quote
I don't think it's a significant moral issue, no.  It is tragic, but mostly due to plain old miscommunication and ignorance which costs the unwary a toe (or nipple) to the grinding machine of beauracracy.  Any payment system's members will benefit equally from fixing these kinds of issues (eg the hospital discloses what additional non-emergency services are covered).

You misunderstand - the moral issue is the nature of for-profit health care.  When the incentives are tilted towards denying coverage, this is the inevitable end
result.  It's working as designed.
What do you think I misunderstand?  I just finished saying that a particular case is not a moral issue;  I can agree that the state of healthcare in the US is a moral issue, if you'd prefer to zoom back out to Generalizationland.

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 01:02:01 PM

"CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care -- 22 percent of all claims."

22% of claims denied - clearly this is just "plain old miscommunication and ignorance" and doesn't merit any attempt at improvement.
That number doesn't tell me much without control or context, frankly. 
I clearly stated that "plain old miscommunication and ignorance" is always an enemy.  Must you extemporize with my words?

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 01:02:01 PM


Quote from: RuperT
Yeah.  I'm still wondering about that... did they have to use a big square Band-aid or just that little round one? Tongue Details are scarce, but ideally she'd be appraised of the actual emergencyness of the event, at least in relation to the biller's and the payor's standards of emergencyness;  this likely didn't happen, and that's the "issue".  Finally, an "emergency cancer diagnosis" seems patently absurd to me.

The cancer diagnosis wasn't the perceived emergency - bleeding from her breast was.  A biopsy takes days.   I find it funny that you're essentially endorsing the republican "death panels" in tangential fashion.  A bureaucrat gets to decide whether this woman was reasonable in being alarmed?  A moral system errs on the side of protecting people's health.  Thank god for EMTALA or more people would be dying outside on the sidewalk.
I don't know what exactly was treated at the ER, nor how it was coded or billed.  I don't care to defend BC, particularly if they reversed a decision on approved treatment.  I do know that a bureaucrat decided she wouldn't be paid, and I think such a bureaucrat would be making similar decisions for any system that attempts to regulate emergency care.  I'm talking about where the rubber hits the road; moral rhetoric is of limited utility here.

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 01:02:01 PM


Quote from: RuperT
I don't know what to make of this paragraph; I suppose you were treating my question as a rhetorical.
I don't know what to make of your inane response - health insurance or a single-payer system should absolutely cover emergencies, whether actual or merely perceived.
I'd prefer ER patients to have an actual emergency, requiring premium emergency treatment.  "Well, you're already here, let's get a CAT scan anyway, huh?"  No.

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 01:02:01 PM

Please, RuperT, describe any changes you'd see made to the current healthcare system.  Is the status quo fine with you?  Are you a tort reform/"negotiate across state lines" kind of guy?
It needs to cost less.  Increase supply.  Decrease demand.  Billing standardization.  Transparency.  I'd like to see the equivalent of what happened with credit unions and banking.  I can't knowledgably argue the specifics of state insurance or tort issues.
134  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: October 01, 2009, 08:07:33 AM

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 05:15:58 AM

Quote from: RuperT on October 01, 2009, 05:03:02 AM

Your analysis seems arbitrary to me, unless you have more data than BA's article presented.  Even so, why do you think this is a significant indictment of the current system?

Did you actually read the article?  
Yes, and found myself wondering at the nipples' fate.

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 05:15:58 AM

A better question is why you think this isn't a significant indictment of the current system.
Because every other feasible system will also have similar misinterpretations of emergency payment guidelines.

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 05:15:58 AM

A woman, who experienced bleeding from her nipples, went to an emergency room where she was diagnosed with breast cancer.  The tumor, after further testing, turned out to be benign.  Her insurance company, 3 months later, billed her $3k because she should somehow have divined that it wasn't "acute distress."

You don't see any immoral behavior on the part of the insurance company there? Really?
I don't think it's a significant moral issue, no.  It is tragic, but mostly due to plain old miscommunication and ignorance which costs the unwary a toe (or nipple) to the grinding machine of beauracracy.  Any payment system's members will benefit equally from fixing these kinds of issues (eg the hospital discloses what additional non-emergency services are covered).

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 05:15:58 AM



Quote
Would your best-case system pay for non-emergency treatment at the ER?  If not, then there will still be confusion with these borderline scenarios.  It's fun to imagine Snidely Moneybags red-stamping these things at Blue Cross, but I recall mostly middle-age ladies following guidelines and doing their job as clearly as they can figure out.  It will be the same for any sane determinative cost-control system (except that Uncle Sam would not be equally shamed by a local news story).

Your concerns defy common sense.  The issue is not whether or not she had a life-threatening emergency - it's whether she reasonably believed she had a life-threatening emergency.  Is it a judgment call in some cases?  Of course.  Is it in this case?  No, not even a little.  
Yeah.  I'm still wondering about that... did they have to use a big square Band-aid or just that little round one? Tongue Details are scarce, but ideally she'd be appraised of the actual emergencyness of the event, at least in relation to the biller's and the payor's standards of emergencyness;  this likely didn't happen, and that's the "issue".  Finally, an "emergency cancer diagnosis" seems patently absurd to me.

Quote from: Brendan on October 01, 2009, 05:15:58 AM

Would a best case system cover non-emergency treatment at an ER?  Perhaps a best best case might, but it's largely irrelevant, as in just a modestly "best case" country with universal coverage, people won't need to resort to going to the emergency room for procedures that would be handled by a primary care physician / family doctor / specialist / whatever.  They can just schedule an appointment.  Will some people still go to the emergency room?  Probably, but unless you have evidence that it'll be statistically important, why should we care?
I don't know what to make of this paragraph; I suppose you were treating my question as a rhetorical.
135  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: October 01, 2009, 05:03:02 AM

Quote from: Brendan on September 30, 2009, 08:24:58 PM

Quote from: RuperT on September 30, 2009, 04:53:52 AM

Would you expect your proposed system to deny their services to people who don't need them?  In other words, could it impose eligibility criteria on premium or emergency treatment?  If so, there will always be analogous ambiguities in triage guidelines, that's all I'm saying.
Will the Channel 5 Investigates team have more or less impact on such a system?

When you say my "proposed system", are you referring to my awesome Investigative News Team system, or a fictitious best-case single-payer system?

In this case, the woman was treated at the emergency room without incident; the post-treatment aftermath is the problem, where the insurer is claiming that her symptoms didn't warrant emergency care.  That's clearly disingenuous on their part.  This wasn't a "triage" decision - it was some insurance company bureaucrat at Blue Shield attempting to earn a few more bucks three months after the fact.
Your analysis seems arbitrary to me, unless you have more data than BA's article presented.  Even so, why do you think this is a significant indictment of the current system?
Would your best-case system pay for non-emergency treatment at the ER?  If not, then there will still be confusion with these borderline scenarios.  It's fun to imagine Snidely Moneybags red-stamping these things at Blue Cross, but I recall mostly middle-age ladies following guidelines and doing their job as clearly as they can figure out.  It will be the same for any sane determinative cost-control system (except that Uncle Sam would not be equally shamed by a local news story).
I don't know enough about the VA's services to make apt scale comparisons with the entire system.  Does the VA run emergency services?
136  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: September 30, 2009, 04:53:52 AM

Quote from: Brendan on September 30, 2009, 04:10:45 AM

Quote from: RuperT on September 29, 2009, 09:43:22 PM

Quote from: Farscry on September 28, 2009, 05:38:05 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on September 27, 2009, 05:40:02 PM


That's just rampant spending that a profit based system should be controlling; the insurance company was just doing what it's supposed to do! retard
Any money-based system will attempt to control spending for premium or emergency services, won't they?

Profit-motivated systems will attempt to control spending by denying their services to people who need them and by insuring the maximum number of people who don't take advantage of them.

That's why we should be trying to get to a single-payer system - lower costs, better outcomes, universal coverage and no profit incentive to motivate death-by-spreadsheet.
Would you expect your proposed system to deny their services to people who don't need them?  In other words, could it impose eligibility criteria on premium or emergency treatment?  If so, there will always be analogous ambiguities in triage guidelines, that's all I'm saying.
Will the Channel 5 Investigates team have more or less impact on such a system?
137  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: September 29, 2009, 09:43:22 PM

Quote from: Farscry on September 28, 2009, 05:38:05 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on September 27, 2009, 05:40:02 PM


That's just rampant spending that a profit based system should be controlling; the insurance company was just doing what it's supposed to do! retard
Any money-based system will attempt to control spending for premium or emergency services, won't they?
138  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Birthers vs Truthers on: September 23, 2009, 12:17:05 AM

Quote from: Jaddison on September 22, 2009, 11:43:45 PM

Because it "shows" that us liberals (anyone who doesn't agree with Brett or questions anything/everything he says is fact) are more nuts and more over the top partisan than conservatives
It's pretty obvious that most paranoiacs are liberals.
139  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Batman : Arkham Asylum on: September 20, 2009, 06:30:17 PM
I'll repost this just for Hardy and SL (you do have the upgrade to use Batarang in combat combo, right?)
Oh, and YGPM.

Quote from: RuperT on September 09, 2009, 06:44:55 AM

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on September 09, 2009, 04:24:28 AM

Spent my entire play time with this game trying to get 3 bats on the first challenge and finally did it. The 5k Super Dark Night (or whatever) bonus put me over the top. W00t.
I just returned this spectacular game to Blockbuster today.  I'd hoped to 3-bat all the combat challenges, but gave up after getting the Silver combat achievement.  As you say, I'd spend hours just trying to finish each one which at the upper levels seemed to involve a good run of luck, like trying to flip heads 10 times in a row, with loadtime and a soon-annoying announcement between each try (compounded with the frustration of Bats spontaneously whiffing on an attack, or going for that long rotation spin-kick, or getting a collateral hit on an attacker I've just hit Y to counter, or.... yeah).
I recommend you don't get too obsessed with the perfect Freeflow and Health bonuses.  Once you get into the more extreme combat challenges, you will have a VERY hard time achieving this  perfection (I think I only managed to even survive a couple of the Extremes).  Instead, a good habit is to go for the Variation bonus every time you start a combo (a 3500 bonus is fairly easy to achieve each round, and I think it tops out at 5000 if you use every move in a single combo - which also gives an achievement the first time).  The tricky part to that is getting a good batclaw (you can use it as a round opener oftentimes), and getting a groundsmash before the last guy (who you will instead always take out with a critical unless he's already on the ground when you eliminate his pals).   Just remember to toss batarangs, throw in a stun even if there aren't any knife-wielders, etc. and you will achieve 3-bat very easily on your earlier challenges.
Also, notice which attacks give extra points and how much.  For example, throwing or kicking a thug over a railing nets extra points, and groundsmash will give you 100XComboMult, which is 1000 points even if you're just on 10X which is nearly trivial.  Use your unblockable as soon as you get it; a critical is a waste there.
Damn good game, but I'm glad I rented it as I don't see much replay value (unless I ran through again to kick get the Party Pooper achievement, at which you only get one shot).  I suppose I could've spent another week or seven maybe getting the Gold combat Ach., but that seemed just too frustrating as my LIVE ID doesn't rhyme with USMP Schmaeto.
140  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Exoskeletons? Bah. on: September 10, 2009, 02:07:17 AM
"Whoa."
141  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Batman : Arkham Asylum on: September 09, 2009, 06:44:55 AM

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on September 09, 2009, 04:24:28 AM

Spent my entire play time with this game trying to get 3 bats on the first challenge and finally did it. The 5k Super Dark Night (or whatever) bonus put me over the top. W00t.
I just returned this spectacular game to Blockbuster today.  I'd hoped to 3-bat all the combat challenges, but gave up after getting the Silver combat achievement.  As you say, I'd spend hours just trying to finish each one which at the upper levels seemed to involve a good run of luck, like trying to flip heads 10 times in a row, with loadtime and a soon-annoying announcement between each try (compounded with the frustration of Bats spontaneously whiffing on an attack, or going for that long rotation spin-kick, or getting a collateral hit on an attacker I've just hit Y to counter, or.... yeah).
I recommend you don't get too obsessed with the perfect Freeflow and Health bonuses.  Once you get into the more extreme combat challenges, you will have a VERY hard time achieving this  perfection (I think I only managed to even survive a couple of the Extremes).  Instead, a good habit is to go for the Variation bonus every time you start a combo (a 3500 bonus is fairly easy to achieve each round, and I think it tops out at 5000 if you use every move in a single combo - which also gives an achievement the first time).  The tricky part to that is getting a good batclaw (you can use it as a round opener oftentimes), and getting a groundsmash before the last guy (who you will instead always take out with a critical unless he's already on the ground when you eliminate his pals).   Just remember to toss batarangs, throw in a stun even if there aren't any knife-wielders, etc. and you will achieve 3-bat very easily on your earlier challenges.
Also, notice which attacks give extra points and how much.  For example, throwing or kicking a thug over a railing nets extra points, and groundsmash will give you 100XComboMult, which is 1000 points even if you're just on 10X which is nearly trivial.  Use your unblockable as soon as you get it; a critical is a waste there.
Damn good game, but I'm glad I rented it as I don't see much replay value (unless I ran through again to kick get the Party Pooper achievement, at which you only get one shot).  I suppose I could've spent another week or seven maybe getting the Gold combat Ach., but that seemed just too frustrating as my LIVE ID doesn't rhyme with USMP Schmaeto.
142  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: GTA IV: The Ballad of Gay Tony on: September 02, 2009, 05:43:52 PM
I'm in for sure.  I really liked TLAD, more than plain GTAIV even;  it had a better story, better missions, better characterization.
I hope there is more DLC.  I think they could do a lot more with Liberty City; it's a plenty big sandbox, just put some more toys in there.  Drop me in there as a costumed vigilante.  Give me a good cop story; either SWAT or vice would be fine (hell, random Most Wanted missions would be cool).
More!
143  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Band names... on: August 30, 2009, 03:48:59 AM
War House
Red Flank
Low Horse
144  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Looking for a new fantasy novel/series on: August 24, 2009, 10:20:14 PM

Quote from: Gratch on August 24, 2009, 01:26:35 PM

100 pages into The Name of the Wind.  Damn, this is a good read.
Hey, whoa now!  I was requesting this book from the library, and I saw 'Book 1 Kingkiller chronicle'.  I have a geis against starting unfinished series (I was fooled into reading the Song of Fire and Ice 'trilogy'...).  I'll keep an eye on it (I've got about 20 book thread Favorites between here and OO).
One of my absolute favorites is The Warlord Chronicles.  It is very low fantasy, but I really dug it (much more than his later Grail Quest series, FWIW).
I noticed Glen Cook's Black Company tales have been released in a trade paperback omnibus; those are generally well-considered as a pragmatic alternative to Erikson.
I agree with others who were disappointed by Perdido Street;  too much setting and not enough plot for my tastes, buy YMMV.
Zelazny's more modern fantasy Chronicles of Amber is a long-time favorite.  If contemporary is cool, that or American Gods might be of interest.
If you found Wolfe too loquacious, I hesitate to recommend Jack Vance, but his Dying Earth series influenced us nerds more than we might realize, and I relish any of his works for their wordsmithing.  Steven Brust reminds me of Vance in some ways, but might be more accessible. 
 
145  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: police caption on: August 12, 2009, 07:07:03 PM
"No fingerless gloves?  I'm going to have to see some I.D."
146  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Birthers? on: July 30, 2009, 07:37:59 AM

Quote from: Exodor on July 29, 2009, 11:06:49 PM

Quote from: th'FOOL on July 28, 2009, 07:30:15 PM

If anyone wants to know why Ron was reluctant to open up the pandora's box of a political/religious subforum, look no further than this thread. yeesh.

I don't think the subforum is the problem so much as one particular poster.



Psst!  I think he owns the joint...
 slywink
147  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [360] Red Faction: Guerrilla Impressions on: July 02, 2009, 07:02:12 PM
I'd like to try multiplayer, too (still slogging through SP on Hard).  I'm an East coast late-nighter, usually.
148  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Jason Bourne is a Pussy! (Taken) on: June 26, 2009, 09:18:39 AM
I watched it late last night, but it wasn't quite as good as I was hoping.  I always like Liam "Take the fuckin' elephant!" Neeson, but I was surprised to see Jon Gries wasted.  I was actually expecting his old buddies to play a larger part than they did.
My big sticking point was this meticulous professional who would track his quarry deliberately and efficiently, and then just careen into a confrontation with what appeared to be little to no forethought or discretion.  One can blame his impatience on the high personal stake easily enough, but I thought it was at great odds with the clockwork character the film constructed for us.
In the end: decent enough revenge porn.
149  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Thanks for taking it seriously Fox News on: June 20, 2009, 06:40:30 PM
Huh?  If that little 2 minute bit elicits any kind of negative reaction, one should re-evaluate one's current dosages.
150  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Gingrich: "Obama's already failed." on: June 11, 2009, 10:53:29 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on June 11, 2009, 04:08:07 PM

The justification was that the agency could recoup more revenue by using computers to dispute millions of low-income tax returns than by using the judgment of skilled professionals to investigate wealthy individuals with the means, motive, and opportunity to avoid paying their fair share.
Did it work?
151  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Was it worth it? (GM bankruptcy) on: June 05, 2009, 07:25:48 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on June 05, 2009, 12:18:55 PM

Quote from: RuperT on June 05, 2009, 08:32:59 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on June 04, 2009, 04:26:01 PM

Quote from: Moliere on June 04, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on June 04, 2009, 03:53:40 PM

Show me the government mandate.  I'll wait.

What do you think emissions and mileage standards are for besides to mandate the size and type of car we can drive?

You have the right to drive any kind of car you want.  However, if your excessive car emissions help warm the planet which causes sea levels to rise and floods my house, should you still have the right to drive your gas-guzzler?  Or if it belches out a lot of emissions that causes the area to have high and unhealthy Ozone levels, should you still have the right to drive your gas-guzzler?

In a libertarian utopia, when do your actions get curtailed because they cause me harm?
For starters, I'd say when you can accurately quantify those actions and the harm done.  Let's say my SUV gets 15 mpg and my neighbor's car gets 30 mpg.  Who will do more harm over the next year?
I'm actually not opposed to efficiency and emission standards, but I'm not sure they address the problem effectively.  It's sort of like mandating how hard you can hit your wife.


So, to make sure I understand your point, I'd have to show direct, quantifiable harm?
Yes.  The action you want to curtail is not really "drive a low efficiency car", it's "produce harmful emissions", right?  In my example above; if my neighbor drives 4 times as far in a year, who's doing the most harm?
My point: curtail the appropriate action.
152  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Was it worth it? (GM bankruptcy) on: June 05, 2009, 08:32:59 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on June 04, 2009, 04:26:01 PM

Quote from: Moliere on June 04, 2009, 04:12:12 PM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on June 04, 2009, 03:53:40 PM

Show me the government mandate.  I'll wait.

What do you think emissions and mileage standards are for besides to mandate the size and type of car we can drive?

You have the right to drive any kind of car you want.  However, if your excessive car emissions help warm the planet which causes sea levels to rise and floods my house, should you still have the right to drive your gas-guzzler?  Or if it belches out a lot of emissions that causes the area to have high and unhealthy Ozone levels, should you still have the right to drive your gas-guzzler?

In a libertarian utopia, when do your actions get curtailed because they cause me harm?
For starters, I'd say when you can accurately quantify those actions and the harm done.  Let's say my SUV gets 15 mpg and my neighbor's car gets 30 mpg.  Who will do more harm over the next year?
I'm actually not opposed to efficiency and emission standards, but I'm not sure they address the problem effectively.  It's sort of like mandating how hard you can hit your wife.
153  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Best post-apocalyptic novels? on: May 18, 2009, 10:59:29 PM
Alas, Babylon
154  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Battlefield-like games, but slower on: April 30, 2009, 07:32:40 PM
America's Army does sound like a good fit (based on my play, wow, 8 years ago?!).
Have you tried the BF2 mod Project Reality?  It's not One Life To Live, but the pace is much more strategic.
I also often enjoy a slower paced FPS; sadly I think we're a real minority.  Auto regen health FTL.
155  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Apparently 4 months is the breaking point for Gov. Rick Perry... on: April 15, 2009, 07:38:48 PM

Quote from: Brendan on April 15, 2009, 03:40:08 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on April 15, 2009, 02:36:02 PM

Take these idiotic "tea parties" protesting the "crushing" tax burden on American taxpayers. They're full of anti-Obama rhetoric, but Obama didn't set the current tax rates and, in fact, his proposed budget doesn't raise taxes on 98% of taxpayers, and includes some cuts for folks whose income falls in the middle brackets.

That's the hilarious irony of these events - if attendees simply match the proportional demographics of American taxpayers, 95% of them will have received tax cuts from Obama's tax plan.  And yet, they'll be at these things bleating about tax hikes - I had no idea that a 35% top marginal tax rate, rather than the 38% of the Clinton depression, would create such a populist uprising.  Oh, except that it's not populist, but sponsored by astroturfing groups.

Today will be the funniest tax day ever.
Why do you find it so hilarious that folks would oppose such a thing on principle, even if it doesn't affect them personally?  Do you think they're all just too stupid to be sensibly selfish about this?
156  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: April 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on April 13, 2009, 09:49:22 PM

Quote from: Brendan on April 13, 2009, 08:06:13 PM

Quote from: Laner on April 13, 2009, 07:49:50 PM

Our government has shown time and time again that they are incapable of handling money well.  Why anyone thinks giving them control over yet another huge chunk of the economy is a *good* idea is beyond me.

Quote from: Blackadar on April 13, 2009, 04:58:16 PM

No matter what evidence is produced to the contrary (i.e., the current financial crisis) that the free market is incapable of self-regulation, they'll always believe that the only role of government in the free market is no role at all.

Quote from: Autistic Angel on April 13, 2009, 06:21:07 PM

I'd love to see more substantive conversations about the pros and cons of different publicly funded health care options for the United States.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure what one would look like because anytime it's tried, there's always someone from the "Center for Protecting America from Liberal Fascists" there to complain that any option would increase taxes by 320%.


Yep, it's not hard to see their non-specific, unsubstantiated discussion points from a mile away.  Might as well preempt 'em. 
Frankly, I think you guys need some work on civil discussion.  Moliere specifically tried to engage you on a particular article concerning an expensive cancer treatment in New Zealand, and you didn't have anything to say until you could join a 'consensus' that any opponents would surely have nothing 'substantive' to add (like a multiple-choice Gallup poll!).
I realize you've convinced yourselves you can Google your way into expertise on these matters, but many of us have no such... I'm going to go ahead and say 'arrogance'.  Laner contributed a perfectly acceptable post in this context, and unless there's some history between you, I think your dismissal of it is rude and, more on point, foolish.  It's much the same objection I have to a universal health plan (in addition to your standard libertarian complaints about taxation inequity).  Our government clearly dropped the ball with our economy, and I consider that 'substantive'.
If you'd greatly prefer to drill down and speak about specifics, can you give us a chewable challenge (not 'defend privatized healthcare in toto').
157  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: April 13, 2009, 04:04:18 AM
I'm not sure why we're begging the question at this point, but I don't really understand what 'availability' means in this context.  It seems to me that Canadians satisfaction numbers should be even higher than that, given that health care is not 'unavailable' to any of them.
158  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I may have just become a believer in universal healthcare on: April 11, 2009, 08:20:48 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on April 11, 2009, 06:03:29 PM

Quote from: Moliere on April 10, 2009, 06:59:15 PM

Why argue a moral principle when you can argue pragmatic points. You can start with The Atlantic article from Virginia Postrel.

No, I'm not doing your research for you.  I just think it's funny that somehow you think nationalized health insurance is the same as armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.  What, is Social Security akin to rape?  Is the postal service now Grand Theft Auto?   icon_lol icon_lol icon_lol icon_lol icon_lol
Do you want to "stop the bullshit hyperbole", or don't you?
Moliere is referring to the article he linked which points out some of New Zealand's perceived political inconsistencies in cost/benefit analysis for expensive cancer treatments.  That's a con, would you like to discuss it?

Quote from: brettmcd on April 11, 2009, 06:54:20 PM

People who have insurance now dont go to the Dr for small ailments, or preventative care, how will a flawed nationalized system change that in any way?
I think this is an interesting point.  Would these preventative care visits be mandatory?
159  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Skate 2 DLC on: April 03, 2009, 06:37:48 PM
I had Skate2 out for a while on rental (I'd like to grab it again actually).  I'd wait until you have unlocked all the available parks before trying any of the DLC, personally (I didn't end up buying any, but then again I don't own it).  I was very happy with the variety of areas (and I'm almost thinking the Community Center was still there?).  I liked the Boneyard halfpipes for aerial challenges, but the marina might be more what you're looking for in an open area, Producto.
160  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Neighbors can be distinctly un-fabulous... on: March 31, 2009, 04:48:54 AM
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.251 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.042s, 1q)