~Byond Headliners~

On the cover from left to right are the main characters Chris Redfield and Sheva Aloma. Resident Evil 5 is the lastest installment to the Resident Evil Series. I played the game myself. Although it has a three day long at most story mode, I found it to be awesome.


Developer(s) Capcom
Publisher(s) Capcom
Platform(s) Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Microsoft Windows
Genre(s) Survival horror, third-person shooter
Mode(s) Single-player, online and offline co-op

Story:

The main character, Chris Redfield is sent to Africa on a mission to apprehend a guy named Ricardo Irving who is attempting to sell a bio-organic weapon on the black market. He is assigned a female partner named Sheva Aloma. During this mission they experience the mega-morphing of humans into Majinis. On a mission, they find members of Aplha Team dead. Later, they also find Delta team dead. Chris and Sheva still manage to defeat the bio-weapon. Upon, boarding a ship they spot Irving and pursue him but he manages to escape. The two find Wesker, restrain him, and inject him with the serum. He escapes onto the bomber, and they pursue him. After a short confrontation with Wesker, Chris deactivates the bomber, which plummets into a volcano. Before they crash, Sheva shoots Wesker off the bomber into the volcano below. Chris and Sheva, now in the volcano, discover that Wesker survived and he infects himself with Uroboros. They defeat the infected Wesker, who falls into the lava. A helicopter appears over the horizon, manned by Josh and Jill, and Chris and Sheva board it. As it attempts to fly away, Wesker tries to pull it down into the lava with him. Sheva and Chris kill Wesker with two rocket-propelled grenades, and the helicopter is freed. In the helicopter, Chris ponders whether it is worth fighting to preserve humanity. He looks at Sheva and Jill and then decides it is worth it, "for a future without fear."

Gameplay:

Resident Evil 5 features similar gameplay to Resident Evil 4, with context-sensitive controls and dynamic cut scenes also making a return.

The player can control Chris Redfield or Sheva Alomar in a similar fashion to Leon S. Kennedy in Resident Evil 4, with the same over-the-shoulder perspective.Once again, the game's environment plays a significant role. The Mercenaries minigame, featured in previous Resident Evil games, is present in Resident Evil 5. At launch, the multiplayer in the minigame was offline only, but a launch day patch gave the game online multiplayer.

The game features new types of enemies called "Majini", meaning evil spirit in Swahili. Furthermore, they are different from the previous ganados. The number of weapon variations has been greatly increased compared to the previous games in the series; there are now several varieties of the handgun, shotgun, submachine gun and rifle to choose from. Unlike inventory systems in previous Resident Evil titles, the player can only equip weapons and items in the midst of gameplay, as opposed to accessing an inventory menu by pausing the game.

The game features some online elements.Resident Evil 5's main story mode can be played with two players, in a co-operative online mode. The feature will allow players to enter or leave anytime during the game. Players will not always stick together, and can be separated at points during the gameplay. An offline co-op mode is also in the game with the same co-op experience offered by the online co-op mode, only with two local players controlling the action in split screen.

Setting:

Setting
The setting of Resident Evil 5 has a similar feel to the film Black Hawk Down. Takeuchi added that the development team is composed of staff members who worked on the original Resident Evil
. The game is a direct sequel to the Resident Evil series, and continues chronologically after Resident Evil 4. The player characters and protagonists are Chris Redfield and Sheva Alomar, and the game takes place roughly ten years after the events of the original Resident Evil. The story explores Chris' life during the ten year interval between the two games. During the game's events, he is a member of a group known as Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance (BSAA), and sent to investigate a terrorist bio-organic weapon threat in an African desert area in Kijuju, that serves as the game's setting. The antagonists of the game include Albert Wesker, a returning antagonist to the series, and Excella Gionne, a relative of the founder of the Tricell Pharmaceutical Company who operates the company's African branch. Ozwell E. Spencer, the founder of Umbrella Corp. and a key figure in the background story of the series since the original Resident Evil, is also included in a flashback.

Overall: 8.5/10

Ive been hearing alot about the American Healthcare system on the news lately. Its obvious that the Canadian system is better. I am a canadian myself. To prove that the Canadian System is better:

Canada's national health insurance program, often referred to as "Medicare", is designed to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services, on a prepaid basis. Instead of having a single national plan, we have a national program that is composed of 13 interlocking provincial and territorial health insurance plans, all of which share certain common features and basic standards of coverage. Framed by the Canada Health Act, the principles governing our health care system are symbols of the underlying Canadian values of equity and solidarity.

Roles and responsibilities for Canada's health care system are shared between the federal and provincial-territorial governments. Under the Canada Health Act (CHA), our federal health insurance legislation, criteria and conditions are specified that must be satisfied by the provincial and territorial health care insurance plans in order for them to qualify for their full share of the federal cash contribution, available under the Canada Health Transfer (CHT). Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the management, organization and delivery of health services for their residents.

Health care in Canada is funded and delivered through a publicly-funded health care system, with most services provided by private entities.[1]

Health care spending in Canada is projected to reach $160 billion, or 10.6% of GDP, in 2007. This is slightly above the average for OECD countries, and substantially below the 15.2% of GDP taken by up healthcare in the United States.[2]

In Canada, the various levels of government pay for about 71% of Canadians' health care costs, which is slightly below the OECD average. Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, the publicly funded insurance plans are required to pay for medically necessary care, but only if it is delivered in hospitals or by physicians. There is considerable variation across the provinces/territories as to the extent to which such costs as outpatient prescription drugs, physical therapy, long-term care, home care, dental care and even ambulance services are covered.[3]

Considerable attention has been focused on two issues: wait times and health human resources. There is also a debate about the appropriate 'public-private mix' for both financing and delivering services.

Canada's healthcare spending is expected to reach $171.9 billion, or $5,170 per person, in 2008. Health expenditures are expected to be 10.7% of the gross domestic product. Hospitals account for the largest segment in spending at $48.1 billion, however, this amount is declining. According to the OECD, spending was second amongst other countries, less than United States and more than Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg[4].

Canada has a federally sponsored, publicly funded Medicare system, with most services provided by the private sector. Each province may opt out, though none currently do. Canada's system is known as a single payer system, where basic services are provided by private doctors (since 2002 they have been allowed to incorporate), with the entire fee paid for by the government at the same rate. Most family doctors receive a fee per visit. These rates are negotiated between the provincial governments and the province's medical associations, usually on an annual basis. A physician cannot charge a fee for a service that is higher than the negotiated rate — even to patients who are not covered by the publicly funded system — unless the physican opts out of billing the publicly funded system altogether. Pharmaceutical costs are set at a global median by government price controls. Other areas of health care, such as dentistry and optometry, are wholly private.

Criticisms

[edit] Wait times

One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, imaging procedures such as MRI or Cystoscopy, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[25][26]

A March 2, 2004, article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI—a whopping 22 months." [27]

A February 28, 2006, article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."[28] The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [29] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times [30]. In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in America," host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed. [31]

According to the Fraser Institute, treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[32][33] However, the Fraser Institute's report is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report.[34]

Since 2002, the Canadian government has invested $5.5 billion to address the wait times problem.[35] In April 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that all ten provinces and three territories would establish patient wait times guarantees by 2010. Canadians will be guaranteed timely access to health care in at least one of the following priority areas, prioritized by each province: cancer care, hip and knee replacement, cardiac care, diagnostic imaging, cataract surgeries or primary care.[36]

[edit] Medical professional shortage

Canada's shortage of medical practitioners causes problems.[37] With 2.1 doctors per thousand population in 2006, Canada is well below the OECD average of 3.1. Canada's 8.8 nurses per thousand was also below the OECD average of 9.7.[38] Suggested solutions include increasing the number of training spaces for doctors in Canada, as well as streamlining the licensing process for foreign doctors already in the country.[39]

Doctors in Canada make an average of $202,000 a year (2006, before expenses).[40] Alberta has the highest average salary of around $230,000, while Quebec has the lowest average annual salary at $165,000, creating interprovincial competition for doctors and contributing to local shortages.[40]

In 1991, the Ontario Medical Association agreed to become a province-wide closed shop, making the OMA union a monopoly. Critics argue that this measure has restricted the supply of doctors to guarantee its members' incomes.[41]

According to a 2007 article from CTV News, the Canadian medical profession is suffering from a brain drain. The article states, "One in nine trained-in-Canada doctors is practising medicine in the United States...If Canadian-educated doctors who were born in the U.S. are excluded, the number is one in 12." [42]

In September 2008, the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontarian government agreed to a new four-year contract that will see doctors receive a 12.25% pay raise. The new agreement is expected to cost Ontarians an extra $1 billion. Referring to the agreement, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty said,"One of the things that we've got to do, of course, is ensure that we're competitive ... to attract and keep doctors here in Ontario...".[43]

In December 2008, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada reported a critical shortage of obstetricians and gynaecologists. The report stated that only 1,370 obstetricians were practicing in Canada and that number is expected to fall by at least one-third within five years. The society is asking the government to increase the number of medical school spots for obstetrics and gynecologists by 30 per cent a year for three years and also recommended rotating placements of doctors into smaller communities to encourage them to take up residence there[44].

[edit] Restrictions on privately funded health care
Main article: Canada Health Act

The Canada Health Act, which sets the conditions with which provincial/territorial health insurance plans must comply if they wish to receive their full transfer payments from the federal government, does not allow charges to insured persons for insured services (defined as medically necessary care provided in hospitals or by physicians). Most provinces have responded through various prohibitions on such payments. This does not constitute a ban on privately funded care; indeed, about 30% of Canadian health expenditures come from private sources, both insurance and out-of-pocket payments.[45] The Canada Health Act does not address delivery. Private clinics are therefore permitted, albeit subject to provincial/territorial regulations, but they cannot charge above the agreed-upon fee schedule unless they are treating non-insured persons (which may include those eligible under automobile insurance or worker's compensation, in addition to those who are not Canadian residents), or providing non-insured services. This provision has been controversial among those seeking a greater role for private funding.

In 2006, a Canadian court threatened to shut down one private clinic because it was planning to start accepting private payments from patients.[46]

Governments have responded through wait time strategies, discussed above, which attempt to ensure that patients will receive high-quality, necessary services in a timely manner.
Nonetheless, the debate continues

American system: Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. More is spent on health care in the United States on a per capita basis than in any other nation in the world.[1][2] A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that while the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S.[3] In 1996, 5% of the population accounted for more than half of all costs.[4][5] Medical debt is the principal cause of bankruptcy in the United States.[6] The United States dominates the biopharmaceutical field, accounting for three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and spending in research and development.[7] In addition, the U.S. produces more new pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and affiliated biotechnology than any other country, or the Western European nations combined.
Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[11][12] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[13] The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of assurance).

Prescription drug prices
Main article: Prescription drug prices in the United States

During the 1990s, the price of prescription drugs became a major issue in American politics as the prices of many new drugs increased exponentially, and many citizens discovered that neither the government nor their insurer would cover the cost of such drugs. In absolute currency, the U.S. spends the most on pharmaceuticals per capita in the world. However, national expenditures on pharmaceuticals accounted for only 12.9% of total health care costs, compared to an OECD average of 17.7% (2003 figures).[161] Some 25% of out-of-pocket spending by individuals is for prescription drugs.[162]

The U.S. government has taken the position (through the Office of the United States Trade Representative) that U.S. drug prices are rising because U.S. consumers are effectively subsidizing costs which drug companies cannot recover from consumers in other countries (because many other countries use their bulk-purchasing power to aggressively negotiate drug prices).[163] The U.S. position (consistent with the primary lobbying position of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) is that the governments of such countries are free riding on the backs of U.S. consumers. Such governments should either deregulate their markets, or raise their domestic taxes in order to fairly compensate U.S. consumers by directly remitting the difference (between what the companies would earn in an open market versus what they are earning now) to drug companies or to the U.S. government. In turn, pharmaceutical companies would be able to continue to produce innovative pharmaceuticals while lowering prices for U.S. consumers. Currently, the U.S., as a purchaser of pharmaceuticals, negotiates some drug prices but is forbidden by law from negotiating drug prices for the Medicare program due to a Medicare bill passed by the Republican-controlled 109th Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. Democrats have charged that the purpose of this provision is merely to allow the pharmaceutical industry to profiteer off of the Medicare program, which is already in imminent danger of becoming financially insolvent.[5]

[edit] Health care debate
Main article: Health care reform in the United States

A poll released in March 2008 by the Harvard School of Public Health and Harris Interactive found that Americans are divided in their views of the U.S. health system, and that there are significant differences by political affiliation. When asked whether the U.S. has the best health care system or if other countries have better systems, 45% said that the U.S. system was best and 39% said that other countries' systems are better. Belief that the U.S. system is best was highest among Republicans (68%), lower among independents (40%), and lowest among Democrats (32%). Over half of Democrats (56%) said they would be more likely to support a presidential candidate who advocates making the U.S. system more like those of other countries; 37% of independents and 19% of Republicans said they would be more likely to support such a candidate. 45% of Republicans said that they would be less likely to support such a candidate, compared to 17% of independents and 7% of Democrats.[164][165]

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure universal coverage.[15] There is currently an ongoing political debate centering around questions of access, efficiency, quality, and sustainability. Whether a government-mandated system of universal health care should be implemented in the U.S. remains a hotly debated political topic, with Americans divided along party lines in their views of the U.S. health system and what should be done to improve it. Those in favor of universal health care argue that the large number of uninsured Americans creates direct and hidden costs shared by all, and that extending coverage to all would lower costs and improve quality.[166] Opponents of government mandates or programs for universal health care argue that people should be free to opt out of health insurance[167] and that government programs would require higher taxes, increase bureaucratic inefficiencies, increase utilization, and reduce health care quality.[citation needed] However, the Federal Government's Medicare program disproves many of these claims because it is much more efficient (3% administrative cost compared to 20% for private health insurance) and offers complete choice of doctors. The private Medicare Advantage plans, on the the hand, have to be subsidized by tax dollars to stay afloat, and restrict consumer choice remarkably. Opponents also argue that the current level of government involvement in U.S. health care contributes to higher costs, and point to free-market solutions to increase efficiency, stimulate innovation, and make consumers rather than third parties more responsible for cost decisions.[citation needed] Again, Medicare shows that a government-run, public health care option is enormously popular among those allowed to buy into it. A higher percentage of each premium dollar paid goes to healthcare, and the public Medicare plan makes no restrictions on choice of doctor. Both sides of the political spectrum have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating whether people have a fundamental right to have health care provided to them by their government.[168][169]

An impediment to implementing any US healthcare reform that does not benefit insurance companies or the private health care industry is the power of insurance company and health care industry lobbyists.[170][171] Possibly as a consequence of the power of lobbyists, key politicians such as Senator Max Baucus have taken the option of single payer health care off the table entirely

Well, Ive been working on a game for awhile now. Its a Naruto game. I started off by using the Davin Naruto source. Im wondering if I switch it to a Roleplaying game. I coded new stuff and it looks like it code be a good roleplaying game. The training system isnt that fast so it makes for a better rping game. If you have any clan codes or village codes then leave a comment. GM spots are open and Im looking for two co-owners. You can get co-owner if you contribute to the game. I might be able to host it so Im not looking for a host. The other two Naruto roleplaying games average about 13 players. But this game has more jutsus, clans and villages.

The second thing...Since people started joining the guild I have set ranks. These are the ranks in order

1.Genin

2.Chunnin/Jounin

3.Anbu

4.Kage

Dont be afraid to post..

1. Naruto, Ninja Arts by Asakuraboy- Great staff, great icons and great gameplay. Version two of this game was started from scratch about 5-6 months ago and it shows in the icons. Ongoing Updates.

2. Seika by Iccusion Entertainment - Great gameplay. PvP. You can also defeat monsters that are scattered across the lands. Great icons.

3. Bleach by VcentG - At the time BLN averaged 23 players this game was shining. This game would average 30 players. Now, this game averages about 13-25 players. Mainly because of the time VcentG was gone. It still is a great game.

Byond Memebers are able to join this guild as of umm right now..

Everyone is approved. That doesnt mean that you cant be kicked out.

~Guild Rules~
1. No inappropriate links
2. No inappropriate language. (There are exceptions to this rule)
3. And the mooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssttttt important one is.....Have fun?