I've played the Goldeneye on the Wii and I have it on my 3DS. My husband prefers it but the 1 Bond game they have for the WiiU really is bad. So we've been playing Black Ops 2. Personally my favorite FPS is Perfect Dark on the Nintendo 64. I really should hook it up and play it again.

I played MoH. Love WW II shooters. I forget the exact title, but there was a game that basically paralleled the Band of Brothers TV show. It was weird to play the game, then watch the show and see almost exact duplicates of the scenery! It was like, "Damn...I've *been* there..." lol

Wii shooters....ugh....hideous...awful....blech blech blech. Xbox maybe...can't beat PC shooters for precision control.

Well no Xbox in the house and prefer the controls of a platform to the PC. I really do like the WiiU though. The controller touch screen makes changing weapon sets and calling in score streak so easy.

I used to have a classic XBox where I played a lot of the two series. I haven't bothered to update to anything newer and sold it long ago. So all my games nowadays tend towards MMO and all are on the PC.

Well MMO's are a different beast all together anyways.

Both Call of Duty and Close Combat had Normandy Invasions in them that may well have been what you played.

How did a forum about a potential debate turn into this? I was so excited for that to go down.

If Krellin, Draug and I are all talking it either turns to Sci-Fi/Fantasy books/movies/etc or video games. Oh and sometimes comic books aas well.

Oye. I guess I'll just turn to the gay marriage thread for a good debate then

And krellin - Just so you know, I thought CF was suggesting just a general debate of Cons versus Libs. I didn't ready any implied "krellin and YJ on the team" in her statement, so I suspect that was a predisposition on your part to see that as implied. Happens to the best of us though.

I was told that this forum was full of mass debators but personally I don't give a toss

CF -- I'm all for continuous and frequent discussion of Sci-fi/fantasy/books/movies/games/ etc.

Reading a Star Trek series right now ...post DS9, massive Borg invasion of ~7000 cubes intent on obliterating (not assimilating) the Federation. Quite a concept...very "universe changing"...First book bored me to tears...now I can't wait to see how it turns out. I'm actually disturbed at the idea of the Federation, Klingon and Romulan empires literally being wiped out..it feels like I have an old friend dying of cancer...

I can't help but to think -- Wow, what would it be like to write the series for the Star Trek universe in which you get to create such havoc and change?! Quite an honor...

Imagine writing it by creating the scenarios in something like STO and playing them through to get a "decision" on the battle victor then usng that result to decide where and how the next incursion would occur and on and on. Basically the opening of the novel sets the stage but the game actually writes the core action set pieces of the novel.

No clue I rarely read books based on shows I like. I try to keep those thing separated lest I get disappointed.

@Draug - I understand the original Dragon Lance series was actually based upon a groups D&D game, which I think is a pretty cool concept, thinking back on all the D&D games played late night into the weekend in various friends basements...lol

@CF - I used to never read book in the same way, but I had the epubs, they're "easy" reads while I decide on my next book, so I went for it.

I have to say, the "known" characters personalities are captured quite well; i.e. the books read like you are watching the show.

The orginal Dragon Lance series is awesome. I was really disappoint in the second series (the one with the next generation) thou
I'm still hesistant. I'm the same way vice versa. I hate watching movies or tv shows off of books I know since I pick them apart to death.

Funny, I was just icking apart The Hobbit last weekend as I finally watched it. Although most of my picking it apart was over the less realistic character effects in the Dwarves. Except for Thoren, they looked like computer creations and not real characters. So they felt out of place. So much of that movie felt "not quite ready for release" effects wise. And then there was the deviations from the story. I understood the lack of Glorfindel by giving Frodo's rescue to Arwen and Tom bombadil was never a vital character to the story. Hacing the Elves at Helm's Deep was even an OK derivation although I am still a bit pissed that our heroes never got to show their heroics back home in the Shire by kicking Saruman and Grimer's ass.

But some of the derivations to stretch it for time in the Hobbit were as bad as the worst of the derivations in the LotR trilogy.

The Hobbit was a hot mess. I understand what you are talking about with regards to the special effects. With the exception of Gollum, everything in the special effects category seemed to take a giant step backwards. Very disappointing.

And adding in the whole elemnt of Azog, who was dead by the time the events of the hobbit occured. His son sought rvenge but only appeared at the BoFA, not through out the book. So Jackson decided to add something distinctly against the Tolkien universe to stretch a kid's story into three movies and make them even more violent than the original book.

It could have easily been done as two movies or one super awesome movie. Instead, Jackson has gone for the money grab. SNL did a great spoof on it a few weekends ago.

http://tinyurl.com/cy6sgwo

My favorite is Hobbit 4 - Apple Maps: An unexpected detour

The Hobbit could of been better, but I do give Jackson props for trying to explain why that book mattered. I really dislike the LotR movies though, but I've mentioned that before.

I absolutely loved the LotR movies. But I was so disappointed with The Hobbit. And not just on the special effects side. Almost nothing happened in the movie. An hour could have been carved out and it would have changed absolutely nothing.

@Jim I'm a Tolkien snob. They changed to much and with the Hobbit added to much. Just leave the story the way it's meant to be told.

Well, if truth be told, I've read the LotR about 11 times, so I kind of like the books also. Most of the changes I understand. Bombadil didn't really matter to the plot, for example. But I went to tFotR with my wife who has never read anything from Tolkien. I thought that I would have to explain everything to her, but to my surprise, Jackson mixed in enough background information that even non-Tolkien lovers would understand them. I think that was a superhuman feat, considering how dense the text and background information is about Middle Earth. And the special effects were spectacular.

@Jim As I said I'm pretty snobby on it and some thing he changed made me very unhappy. The Elves at Helms Deep for example and the fact he had Faramir grab for the ring are just 2 examples. They both carry great meaning in the books, especially Faramir being able to resist wanting the ring.

@CF I do appreciate anyone that can love a book like that, however. It just goes to show what a genius Tolkien was.