Volourn

"Damnit Volo! Why didn't you win the game?!?! WHY!?!" I wish I knew! The Rangers are still fighting for 6th, and they have to 'officially' clinch a play off spot. R00fles! Rangers better brring their A Game against Monteal though. I'm lookin' for sum revenge from last week. P.S. If Montreal wants to clinch a PO spot; they should beat Toronto themselves. P.S.S. To make it all fair, NY should beat Montreal 7-2 just like they beat Toronto!! P.S.S. Worst comes to worst, a OT loss against Montreal wouldn't be the end of the world at least. Then we could rest Lundqvist in the final game that way (if the Rangers bother to). L0LLYGAGS!!

"Volofied" I love you.

Meh. i checked them out. I'm not worried about. Whetehr or not 4 screenshots ar ebetter or worse than other screenshots mean so little to me. I skimmed those threads though, and I laugh hilariously at the panic. Those four pics are proof that ME is being dumbed down. L0LLERZ! It's a paradoxical climax of epic proportions, didn't you know? R00fles! New Blog: http://blogs.ign.com/BioWare_Games/2007/04...51145/#comments Interesting stuff...

First, we'd have to detemrine what the objective is. L0L What happens if the objective is to show off their power, and so they bomb the crap out of? Hmm.. Mission accomplished. What happens if the objective is to to kill the current powers? That mission is very accomplisable. Now, if the objective is to pacifiy the people than that's likely impossible. Heck, most of the Iraq War's objectives *have* been met including the main one which insuring Iraq is a total nonthreat to the US. Mission accomplished there. Yet, people claim that the IW was a complete failure because the perceived goal is different than what some of the main goals actually were. I mean, another stated objective was a full fledge democracy in a peaceful country. Those have yet to be successful but I doubt theyw ere the actual main objectives. Though, the fight for Iraq isn't quite over yet so they have quite failed as of yet. R00fles!

"1. Maybe the controller is preferable to a mouse and keyboard for this user, and they don't want to buy a PC controller." Not the game's fault. By a controller. "2. Maybe they have a nice HDTV that thier monitor doesn't compare to." Meh. What a cop out lame excuse. "3. Maybe they find couch gaming more comfortable." L0L Even lamer. "4. Maybe, after almost 2 years, the user feels the game is showing its age." Meh. The game isn't worse than. It's just aged. If this is true then they should feel the same if they played JE XBOX version now since the game has aged 2 years on that version too. Seems like really weak exuses to me.. "I'm noticing a slight pause after each spoken dialogue that wasn't there before. Therefore, it's like the original, but not quite as nice." This one here actually seems like a legit. reason

Being 'seen' as the loser isn't truly the same as 'being' the loser. R00fles!

How can the port be worse? It's the same game; but with more features. L0LLERZ!

"though spoken Chinese with English subtitles would have added something." That would have been horrible! That would have taken away from the game, imo.

"The Iranians have seen close up what happens to a country when the US or 'the West' invades. I think you could count on much stronger resistance than was offered by the Iraqis. Iranians are extremely proud of their cultural heritage and will not willingly see it ransacked." Iran doesn't have major religious strife between different groups like Iraq. It's majorily Shiite so it's doubtful that there'd be major civil war going on which is the main reason why there's still a lot of killin' going on in Iraq.

"Sorry, but if I "gave up" on someone or something I wouldn't be hanging around them. " You supposedly 'gave up' on BIO yet you still buy their games and keep going back to their forums despite having been banned there numerous times.

Lou is one of the weirdest GMs ever. Mnay of his decisions make me go WTF, and say that guy is stupid, how did he get his job. However, the bottom line is, his teams win so he'll be continually left alone and considred a 'hockey genius'. Of course, it helps when you can rely on one of the best goalies ever. This action is just insane. Of course, the last time he pulled a move liek this, the Devils won the cup. L0LLERZ!

Trolls. Gotta love 'em.

"I'm quoting myself for geniusness" Eh? No biggie. I always liked Avery even when he was a King. I thought he was given a bad wrap. "That's just embarrassing. To be honest I was cheering for Tucker in that fight." Tucker did get one good punch in.. but, that's it...

Innovation can be overrated. I prefer something 'unoriginal and good' than soemthing 'original and bad'. They get no applause from me unless the system is good.

"The thing that gets me the most mixed reactions in the dialogue is that it seems Bioware believes the system to be more flexibe and intuitive, but I don't think it's entirely accurate to assume that. I think it's less intuitive by virtue of imposing another layer of abstraction on the player. Whereas more traditional approaches to dialogue convey what a character is going to say from the start, Mass Effect's approach seems to be that of presenting a short option (an attitude of sorts) that leads into a more elaborate response - but the short one may not necessarily reflect the longer one." That's my biggest worry with the dialogue system. i like to know what myc haracter is gonna say, or do before I decide. I'd rather not be surprised by my character's actions. Beisng surprised by npcs is cool; but not me. Not much to do and wait to see how it turns out; but no doubt there is some iffies.

Rangers have unofficially clinched a play off spot. HIP HIP HOORAY! And, they've found their goal scoring ways again! Sean Avery SKOOLED the Maple Leafs in EVERY facet of the game.

This is gonna be interesting. A win by the Rangers pretty much guarantees my team a play spot while a loss to the Leafs opens up some scary proposition. "BUT WE WILL WIN! WE WILL SHOOT HOLES THROUGH LUNDQUIST IF WE HAVE TO! GO LEAFS GO!" Too late. Montreal, and Philedelphia have done that the last two games. May both of us watch the game with hope, and despair. Heheh..

'September' is not a release date. It's a release month.

"There was an RPG where the princess would say she loved you, and ask if you loved her back. The dialogue pop up let you pick 'yes' or 'no,' but if you picked 'no' she would just repeat, "I love you! Do you love me?" I don't remember its name, but I give it the grand prize for the worst illusion of choice in a dialogue stream. " Dragon Warrior 1.

"There are a lot of people who would like to see a war on Iran, but the fact remains that there is currently no one capable of undertaking an invasion." War doesn't neccessarily = invasion.

"Israel needs to stay out and mind their own business" Bull. If Isreals allies enter a war, it's Isreal's right - no - OBLIGATION - to also enter it if they're asked to. It's nonsensical if they don't. Theyw ere aksed not to be part of the Iraq War so I doubt any conflict with iran would be different.

"I might agree with individual members. For example, Vol is absolutely right about the old skool rpgs." I'm not your typical Codexer. "Care to share some?" If I wanted to discuss your article with Codexers, I'd have replied to it there. It was shared here, and I decided to share my opinions with Obsidianites. Codex has enough I N T E R N E T D R A M A going on. R00fles!

Yeha, that's fine. Not that I neccessarily agree 9or disagree); but that's a fair opinion. The problem is that he states that he feels newer rpgs are taking away role-playing for more story focus. This comaprison basically syas that olde rpgs were more role-palying focused. This simply isn't true (noteable exemptions notwithstanding, of course). That's the problem. He'd be better off stating that current RPGS focused too much on story, and the author would prefer they focus less on story, and focus more on role-playing. That's his main point which is a fair assessment 'cause that itself is true.

The fact that he thinks 'old school role-playings' were ever into actual role-playing. the majority of themw ere dungeon crawls (he mentions that at the start that that's the start of it; but he implies if not outright says that) new RPGs are adding more story and taking away role-playing to do so. This isn't true. This would only be true if FO was a symbol of old school role-playing. It relaly isn't. FO was always an exception to the rule. The GB games, the M&M, and the Wizardries are the symbols of old school role-playing. So ar ethe Final Fantasies which outside of the firts couple always focused on the story. If anything, newer RPGs - while heavily focused on story 9which the article is right about)a re actually adding MORE role-playing than your typical 'old school rpg'. So, like I said, he's half write and half wrong.

It doesn't take much tow rite off thata rticle. For one, it's boring. Two, it says nothing new coming from the Codex. Three, a lot of it simply is illogical. Fourthly, some of it is simply wrong. Don't get me wrong, some of it is very true and accurate. But, not enough, to give it a thumbs up. Maybe a thumbs in the middle though.