Game News The Omega Project press release

A Classic RPG in the Making, eh? We'll see about THAT!

 

Well the concept sounds interesting if not cliched. Of course that means absolutely nothing if they can't form a game out of it.

What is up with all the post apocalyptic RPG's lately?

 

ARE YOU BAD ENOUGH DUDES TO RESCUE THE PRESIDENT's daughter.

 

Fucking balls, I was just about to say exactly that. Instead... A tangent!

Hollywood leads me to believe that the president's daughter is almost certainly quite attractive,* (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) has featured in Dawson's Creek, and has questionable mental faculties.

* Mileage may vary.

 

this is probably the worst post i've seen on here

 

Excellent.

 

Bah, they always have a "overpopulated planet" when most studies say that population growth will stagnate in about 40-50 years from now. After that we will most likely see a stagnating population. If the game is not based in India or China I don't think we will see this in any form... heh not even there.

Natalie Portman was also a presidents daughter... whoopsie, now I showed off my star wars geekdom and general liking of petite brunettes.

 

This game sounds a lot like Escape from LA. Dark future, president's daughter, prison-important-enough-to-the-story-to-mention. "The more things change, the more they stay the same." I'm a little disappointed that the main character is a cop. Cops can be bad and dirty and evil, but they're never quite adventurers. I mean, they take orders. Well, at least they're supposed to.

 

It will only stagnate due to lack of food and other resources, hence it being overpopulated. Our planet is overpopulated already, hence all the starving people and shitty living conditions.

 

Wow. That can't be further from the truth. Our planet is far from overpopulated. We currently produce enough food to feed every single person more calories then what is recommended. Why people are actually starving and have shitty living conditions involves way to many factors to list.

But mind you I am pro death.

 

Don't be an idiot. There is a difference between "We could possibly support 20 billion people" and it being crazy and reckless to try. Places such as africa and the middle east were once paradise, but due to reckless destruction, now they can barely support a minuscule population without outside help. Hence, eys, they are overpopulated, and the environment is being destroyed fairly rapidly as it stands already.

Moreover, the fewer people you have, the better lifestyle those people enjoy, to a point. So therefore, yes, we are overcrowded by any reasonable definition, which includes people not starving, not being poor, etc.

 

You said because people are starving it means we are overpopulated. That is not true. The fact is WE DO have enough food and resources to feed everyone, although I would agree that it is unlikely that we will choose to feed them.

Therefore you are wrong to conclude that we are overpopulated. You are right in saying we are not supporting the population we currently have. Two completely different issues. Like I said before, the reasons for not supporting the current populations include too many factors and the issue is quite complex.

 

pro-death, hardkore

chicks must dig you

 

With logic from the other side, overpopulation is impossible.

 

In many places with massive starvation, population density is very low. In extremely wealthy places like Hong Kong, population density is very high. Overpopulation is not a problem, under-production is. If the ratio of food-producers to population stays constant, as does each producer's production, you shouldn't have a problem. The ratio lowers over time, because productivity keeps increasing.

 

To make more food, you would have to make less of something else. It comes down to what lifestyle is acceptable.

If you blindly give tons of food away, then you will only make the problem worse.

For china to eat beef like the US does, they would have to have cattle consume more than the entire US grain harvest.

Most of the world is fairly hungry on a regular basis; it's only the western world and parts of asia that is never hungry.

If we all ate rice and other grains then ok, we could feed more people.

We are already taking more fish fromt he seas than is really supportable in the long run, for instance.

If you expect everyone to eat like in the USA, then we are already way, way, WAY past the limits of global population. Water and arable land don't grow out of nowhere, you realize.

If you don't mind having a bunch of people just subsisting and doing nothing else, the sky is the limit.

 

Sorry, but you are full of shit. It is true about the rice most likely, but I am using that as an example.

As someone who has gone hungry, it is easy to tell that in fact you never have.

I did not bother to read all your elaborate blathering, so forgive me for not countering each 'point'. What I said stands for itself and is quite obvious. if you subscribe to a little thing called logic, and another called reality. And reading, of course. I don't expect all that from you, though. I did not expect anyone to be stupid enough to argue that the earth's resources are not being strained, but then corporate 'science' and fud are the norm so I should not be surprised so many are.

 

"I am pro death penalty, pro choice, pro suicide, pro assisted suicide...I am for whatever gets the freeway moving faster...were not rebuilding after the floods."

-anonymous

When it comes to women and business I am a chamelion. I say whatever they want to hear (within reason and as long as it's not illegal). Besides women would hate you if you tell them the complete truth (as will most people). And no one would hire you if you were completely honest. I remember taking a test for employment at Best Buy. Basically you sat in front of a computer and it asked ethical questions. I took the test and answered honestly. Without getting into my personal upbringing, I would say I was brought up pretty conservatively and religiously. Put it this way I don't drink or use illegal and most legal drugs. Anyways I didin't get the job. I asked my brother (who works there) and he said that you weren't smart enough to lie on the questions. In other words the test wasn't to test my ethics but to test whether I was smart enough to lie about my ethics. I can't remember any of the questions specifically, but trust me some of them were completely over the top. The type of question where you know no one would actually do the answer they wanted you to say, but you know they want you to pick that answer.

 

Rich people don't have children. They're intelligent enough to get rich, and they're smart enough to avoid children. They enjoy nature, Classical music, RPGs, caviar, and other sublime things the masses don't understand. Over time, these kinds of people die out because they don't have children.

Poor people overbreed. They're stupid, they don't know how to make or save money, and they are easily satisfied with everything else (except sex!). They're happy with WWII first person shooters, Ashlee Simpson, subdivisions, and think fine food is a lunch at Olive Garden. Oh yeah, they vote, too.

In the end, stupidity explains all of this. People are getting stupider because technology allows some would-be Darwin award winners to survive and breed. The solution is a post-apocalyptic period to weed out the stupids, then rebuild from an offshore oil rig. :twisted:

Lots of fun essays on this can be found at anus.com, the internet's most offensive site.

 

Are those two related?

Why is avoiding children smart?

 

Because children eat. They eat your time, your resources, your entire life. They even nibble on your flesh while you're asleep. Those sharp and pointy teeth, those glowing red eyes. Pure evil.