SteveThaiBinh

I suspect that you have onboard graphics - that means that graphics are controlled from the motherboard and you don't have a separate graphics card. If this is the case, you have to buy a proper graphics card. Even a very cheap one like the nVidia GeForce5200 will be fine for Kotor 2, though not for future games.

You're right. Who is this man whose pro-gay credentials are beyond reproach? Surely this organisation 'GLAAD' has every right to voice its opinion as well?

Cat hair in the sink. Cat hair in the bread bin. Cat hair in the scanner. Cat hair wrapped around the mouse ball.

I haven't seen the film yet, though I hope to soon. If this critic is labelling the character as a 'sexual predator' for behaviour that would be fine in a heterosexual character, then he's a homophobic idiot and deserves to be called as such. Well done to GLAAD for doing their job and standing up for gay rights.

I think the author just needs a hug. He does have a lot of valid points, in the way any biased piece will generally have half the relevant points but be missing the other half.

International law (or at least the non-proliferation treaty) says that only five countries can have nuclear weapons - the US, Russia, France, China and the UK. This isn't fair, but it would be quite nice to have international law that everyone followed. It would make the world more secure, and in time the bad laws could be reamde to be fairer. However, there's no way to make Iran follow the law unless Israel, Pakistan and India will do the same. And North Korea, of course. :ph34r:

This may not be a bug, although sometimes things on Nar Shaddaa fail to trigger to the point where it really is a bug. In case it's not:

There is no evidence proving the non-existence of God, as you rightly point out. There is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, and that is why atheists say that they don't believe that God exists. Something isn't true just because lots of people believe it's true, or because some great men believed it was true. There are great scientists today who have religious beliefs, and great scientists and philosophers of the past who were atheists. The question of why religions exist is a huge one, assuming you don't believe that they were divinely (or satanically) revealed. I think religion exists because people have always wanted answers to the great questions of life, and religion has offered these answers. It's a fascinating subject, that's for sure.

Could we try to contain Gabs vs. Pixies to just the one thread? :ph34r: I've never owned a console. The first game that seriously made me think about buying one was Jade Empire (before it was released). A new game from the people who made Kotor? How could I refuse? Fortunately the reviews said it was really really short, so my enthusiasm waned, but it was a close thing. I don't think I'll ever own a console until that one unmissable game is published. Until then, I'm sticking with my PC and its random crashes, explorer errors and wierd triangle distortions in the graphics.

It was a let down to most everyone who played it, but second butters no parsnips.

I don't, although that's an argument that hangs a lot on how you define the words 'faith' and 'belief'. I have bad memories of arguing that at length with someone, quoting several different dictionary sources. I, and most atheists I think, would say that I have beliefs, but not faith. This is not setting my beliefs up as incontrovertible fact or as better than the beliefs of Christians or Buddhists. It merely reflects the fact that these beliefs were arrived at by a different process (by reason rather than by revelation) and I'd like that distinction noted.

No votes for Lionheart, I notice. If you'd put Sacred up there, I could have guaranteed at least one vote, maybe more. Now we'll never know.

The first priority for any Christian or Muslim is to save his own soul and those of others, and religion seems to encourage him to concentrate his efforts in this area. Those with non-religious beliefs (secular humanists, for example) believe the first priority should be improving the world and the lives of all the people in it, and if the billions of believers around the world don't share this priority, it's unlikely to succeed. This is one of the reasons why atheists or humanists are suspicious of religion and say things like "It would be better if all the religions disappeared." Where many atheists make a mistake is underestimating the strength of 'humanism' within the main religions. Many, perhaps most, religious people work actively to make the lives of others better, through charity, conflict resolution, and any number of methods. Religious people are not sitting on their backsides letting the world go to hell because only the next life matters. That may be the logical conclusion of religious belief (by one interpretation, at least), but it's not happening in practice. I believe that the instinct to look out for each other evolved as we evolved and predates religion, though the religious would no doubt attribute it to divine influence. No matter. It's there, either way, and religion is not a major roadblock in making the world a better place.

Yes. The backstory was also really interesting and had great potential. Is this another case of a game rushed to meet a publisher's deadline?

I think it's a good idea, though it's important to sustain it through all dialogues in the game. Most RPGs, even when you can play as an evil character, there are still many conversations where you have to talk like a good character. The game should keep track of your responses to date (and use the DS/LS alignment meter) and put the dialogue option most in keeping with how you've played your character so far first in the list.

Bellydancing in Quest for Glory V.

American conservatives are right and the whole rest of the world is wrong, on every issue. The Muslims are breeding and threatening our very existence. Vote Bush!

It was extremely buggy, made playable (just about) by successive fan mods, and the story was distorted because they had to add in the PotC elements at the last minutes. It would probably have been a much better game as Sea Dogs II. The sea combat was better than Sid Meier's Pirates! One of those games that's disappointing to play because you can see the potential for a much better game in there.

Sacred. :angry: Oh well, if I can't have that... I would vote for Soulreaver purely on the basis of the colour scheme. Not on the list either? Of the ones I've played, Dungeon Siege, though I only played it for half an hour.

Anyone is free to report anything they think is offensive or inappropriate. The mods can decide, in accordance with the guidelines - that's their job, after all.

Somebody's voted already.

I bought Sacred because of the horses. I thought it sounded really cool. I never played Ultima 9. Surely it can't be as bad as Ultima 8?

I nominate Sacred, on the following grounds: It's hard to find the motivation to trek halfway across the map, killing monster after monster, knowing that my reward will be a ten second conversation with an NPC and the next quest, which will be to head off the other side of the map to talk with another NPC. If it improved by the end, let me know, because I don't think I got beyond the halfway point. And I will never again play an RPG which boasts of having randomly-generated sidequests. I like fantasy. I'm a fantasy fan, and I have good tolerance for fantasy stories. They have to be really dull and generic for me to think they're dull and generic. Sacred was. I'm glad I played it, because it's made be appreciate good games like Kotor, NWN and Bloodlines all the more.

Me too. It was clearly a satirical comment on sexism in modern society in general and pulp fiction in particular. You shouldn't apologise. In fact, small children should be made to read this in school.

Baba Yetu