Walsingham

In England we have a phrase for this: locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. And yes, I can see instantly how it knackers second hand sales. Which simply means that anyone wanting the game cut price can only get it by piracy. Nice one, industry. You may not get revenue second hand, but at least you don't drive peopel into piracy. Because I'd guarantee that once someone pirates one game they'll do it again. And yes, I'm still butthurt after diligently paying for Silent Hunter III only to discover that BECAUSE I paid for it the crappy out of date DRM on it means I can't play it. And may I formally and categorically say: f*** Ubisoft and their DRM into a cheap formica cupboard and off a cliff.

Yeah, I found it really cheap somewhere and figured I might as well buy it. But then I remembered I hate Bioware's excessive hand-holding, their habit of not letting the player interact with the game world at all, their linear corridors of levels, their cheese mainstream characters, their Star Wars rip-off stories, their fake freedom of choice, their constant recycling of ideas, etc etc. Bioware just doesn't do games for me. They contain nothing I want, except great graphics. And boobs. I'd say that was fething careless, not fething stupid.

Loving it so far. Up two hours after my bedtime to fit it in. Very very creepy. My only beef is that considering how important the other characters are, you'd think they'd beef up the AI. Just fething stay at my side, you collossal arse.

Stratfor.com might start to get annoyed with me eventually, but this was so good I had to pass it on.

I still say it's far too early to say whether Libya will 'fall'*. Very good article on 'who is propping up Ghaddafi' by Frank Gardner, who I like having met him briefly last year when he was still limping about with Al Qaeda bullet wounds in him. *One might equally well say rise up.

Like an ice-hockey themed dragon.

I disagree on two points: 1. Who is so fething stupid that they buy a game for about 40 bucks, and then only play it once? That's like buying a whoel cake and only eating one slice! 2. Quality encourages you to play. Quality also encourages you to buy the game again. Three points 3. More importantly, when you have enjoyed a game and the next in the series is coming out, surely you wheel out the old one and give it another go? It bridges the gap, so to speak, and sets the tone. Four points 4. Or am I the only person here who considers shelling out a bunch of bucks for a game to be a big deal. I mean 35 quid will buy you a pretty decent single malt, and I'd say that shoud last you about six hours, which is often a single play through in some games. But I buy a game instead because an Obsidian game will give me about 120 hours.

Icons representing intent = writer fail. FFS I assume they get paid to write dialog. Make a goddamn effort.

Very simple thought: Fallout New Vegas essentially supports multiple playthroughs by your political affiliation. one could massively increase the array of playthrough permutations if the DLC bolt ons varied in playthrough by the skillset the character coming into them possessed. That is, for example: NCR, Legion, Indy, Evil Indy, Followers becomes NCR/shooter, NCR/thief, NCR/trader and so on. Thoughts?

I can't help on this one, but I thought if I replied at all it might increase your chances of getting someone who knows something in here.

Interesting angle. How would this explain the failure of revolts in several places? Does it correlate with the spread of such comms? I've no idea. If so, get a paper out about it, double quick. Depends what you mean by 'failure' of revolt. Generally where there is a 'failure' (and in many cases I suspect it is more like a delay rather than an outright failure) there is some sort of other circumstance effecting things- like the presence of very strongly motivated pro-government people in Iran to balance the anti-government ones, or the general disdain for Israel in Lebanon or Syria that tends to stabilise what should theoretically be fairly unpopular governments, or that there is a potential for just throwing enormous amounts of cash at problems if you're Saudi/ Kuwaiti/ Qatari. The main reason I'd say that the mass communication angle is important is that it evens out one of the really big advantages a repressive regime has traditionally had. If you have someone on a street corner shouting "down with the tyrants" it's a matter of simplicity to bundle them into a car. If someone says the same thing on the internet it is theoretically available to everyone, it's far more difficult to censor and far more difficult to bundle the offenders off to the arabic equivalent of Room 101. Basically it comes down to three factors: it's easier to disseminate the information, it's more difficult to repress the information and- in military terms- it gives protesters an ability to communicate that rivals the ability of police or military in terms of immediacy, even if it is not as robust. So whereas you might be dealing with a few scattered and easy to handle groups previously it is now far easier for those groups to cooperate/ amalgamate and organise. I still think it's naive on a scale with 1968 to suggest that these revolutions which fail are just a "delay". I also think it may be slightly slanted to say that Saudi et al. fix this by throwing money at it. I think it would be far far more accurate to say that these North Africa revolutions are primarily about money. After all, the guy who started it all by setting fire to himself did so because he was denied the ability to earn his crust, not because of free speech. You make an interesting expansion on your point with speech, but as with our wikileaks debate I suggest that you conflate (I think that's the right word ) speaking and organising. Speech, by its qualities can organise. But it can just as easily do little more than stir emotional excitement to no useful purpose. Viz the students who sat in Tianenmen square for days before the government realised they were just a rabble and squashed them - in some cases quite literally.

Quick question. Hope you don't mind me being lazy. Should I start a new character, or can I use one of the ones I've finished the main campaign with?

Wait, what? No one told me about these toad hybrids. Do they fire rockets? Or use kung fu?

Friend dropped by with a large quantity of excellent biltong. I now have a kind of beef and salt induced drunken giddiness.

As I see things, there have been two dictators deposed (in Tunisia and Egypt), in two countries now set to have free elections. If you suggest that bloodless demonstrations are pointless, I suggest you give the following a thorough look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution You being British I assume you have some knowledge of Gandhi, who together with the non-violent revolutionaries in the former Soviet Union would be reason enough to support the idea of avoiding excessive force in these very delicate situations. I do not doubt that regimes can be changed by military intervention, however the collateral damage in addition to the risk of a backlash are much greater. But let's not stray too far from my original point: that a revolution backed with arms from a Western country would fail because of it's own illegitimacy, and generate more casualties. To me, this is quite obvious. It also seems to be an aspect of the whole business advocates of war and violence never think of. Having done you the courtesy of reading that link I'm even less convinced than I was to begin with. Not least because your central thesis is repeated at the top of the page, with a sonorous 'citation needed' after it. The three exemplars your employ are defunct on separate distinct counts: 1. I can't believe anyone is so naive that they really believe there will be free and fair elections on schedule in Tunisia and Egypt at this stage. 2. Being British I know that Ghandi himself asserted that nonviolent revolution in India was predicated on the fact that while colonialism was corrupt and violent, the British people fundamentally weren't, and would eventually respond to nonviolent protest without simply slaughtering everyone. Which is quite pleasing, even if it was intended to support his efforts by flattering us. 3. The communist dictatorships always based their legitimacy both on physical force, economic prosperity for all, and on intellectual philosophy in the form of marxism. The latter two supports collapsed when (with the notable exception of our esteemed colleague) everyone actually living under it realised everything they owned was crappy, and the intellectual justification was bollocks. Whereas a state predicated solely on macchiavellian use of ultraviolence, such as Burma or Sudan, sails confidently on. ~ With reference to your last point I have never said that violent revolution was anything more than a recipe for civil war. And civil wars are incredibly violent. I'm utterly baffled by your assertion that violent regime change doesn't work, since nonviolent regime change is a new phenomenon in human history. Which begs the question of how regimes changed prior to this. Perhaps in a game of pazaak?

*reads* *BUYS!* EDIT: as in I had no idea it was available.

*thinks: I hope they can't see me reading this*

Well, it does really, Cal. If the Army falls out of step with society (in a democracy) then society stops enlisting and stops paying for the Army. *thinks* Of course one could argue that this pretty much screws the Army in cultures like modern Britain where no one wants to do any damn work and thinks war is automatically and always wrong.

Was it that ad about being too fat?

I imagine the effect of an earthquake on lingerie models is simply fascinating, rather than dangerous. So he should be in a safe environment.

I've been thinking about this, and may be about to change my mind. After taking on board all that's been said by the former _actual_ soldiers here. But crystalissed by that last comment. It is in the nature of military life that one has values and standards. Those manifest not as individual events or characteristics but as a whole culture/society. Achieving and maintaining an effective output from this culture/society impacts tactical behaviour, and psychological conditions in the unit. these in turn influence psychological injuries, and actual injuries. They also, you know, kinda impact the survival of the State they are defending. So, while the Army must reflect the social values and standards of the society it defends in order to retain its support, I don't think it necessarily follows that those values and standards are appropriate to combat. More importantly, if we try to socially engineer the Army I'd feel al lot happier if we understood what makes it work now before we start f***ing about with it. ~~ As I say, not sure if I'm changing my mind. But I am beginning to wonder if we're being too simplistic.

Nice garden. And is that actually sundial? Now imagining in satellite imagery quality...

FO3 keeps crashing out on you? Why yes it does! Did my mentioning it on almost every part of the forum catch your eye? Makes me laugh after the way Troika is buried under a headstone saying 'bugs'. Now, some bugs are OK. But this many? I'm not exaggerating when I say it won't work on my machine after 5 minutes. Having said that, New vegas seems to have settled down and works pretty well. Provided I turn all the water effects off. I wonder if the problems are to do with the terrain having two levels? Things like radscorpions get stuck into the lower level and stroll around. Someone said the water is on a hidden lower level in some tiles. Could this be the problem?

I'm not being modest. You should have seen me before I was a has been!