Shadowstrider

No, not really. The Anakin recomendation serves ZERO plot purpose, and should've been cut. EDIT: Scratch that, it does serve a plot purpose, but its not "to ensure that Kenobi is sent." It serves to show Anakin that Wrinkles has faith in him where the council does not. This makes sense. This does not.

This is an example of illogic. Why does a recomendation of Anakin lead to the sending of Obi-Wan in a logical line of reasoning? It doesn't. Irrelevent to who Palpatine recomended they would've sent Obi-Wan, he was the resident general of the council, Mace was responsible for protecting Coruscant while Yoda was sent to Kashyyyk. Kenobi was probably the most experienced of the council whom was not busy with some other assignment. Anakin -> Obi-Wan isn't a logical line of thinking, unless you can explain why the council would arrive at that conclusion.

Is this all standard on the latest version of TUTU? If not, got link?

He didn't invent it, he simply "discovered" it. America existed, with millions of people before Columbus' discovery. Columbus wasn't the first to discover america, he is simply accredited with it, in most circles. Dunno... why can Leia recall her mother if she died at her birth? How the hell does a person "lose the will to live" and then die? Why does Yoda need a cane if he can hop around like a pop rock in soda (can you say insurance fraud?)? Why does Obi-Wan not remember R2D2 or C-3PO, if they're so cosy in the first three movies? Why did the emperor take a near-fatal dose of laughing gas before initiating a fight with Yoda? Questions best left un-asked, because the fanboys will come kill your for bringing them up.

Color me unimpressed. It started fairly strong, then Dooku steps on screen in a neutered form. He is made from a fairly imposing figure in 2 to a soft old man in 3. Grievous is much more entertaining in the cartoon, much more. The droids in these movies are nothing more than looney toons. The emperor went from being insidious to a cacklefiend, which was most disappointing. Of all the characters of the movies, I thought he had the most promise, but Lucas managed to bungle, even that. Anakin's fall was laughable. The only thing that kept me in my seat for this movie was the hope it would improve and the dumbfounding action. About halfway through the movie I switched my brain off, and just sat back to watch the special effects and imagine a plot that was less contrived, which is probably what half the "fans" do anyway. *shrugs* Americana at its finest.

Never read the books, but the movie was pretty damn entertaining.

I had a total of 5 roleplaying choices over the course of 2 hours of playing. Everything else was either "hooligan" or "sappy good-guy." There are no truely gut wrenching decisions, like in KotOR2 where you save a life and Kreia presents you with a scenario that you just saved a murderer. Its either good guy, or bad guy. They follow the same formula as KotOR, simple and boring roleplaying, which is to say very little. If it weren't for the fun combat I wouldn't have bought the game (rent first, people.)

Okay, let me say that the story of Jade Empire is most assuredly NOT a strong point. Its a combination of every BioWare game made, to date. Chosen one with natural (perhaps supernatural *In spooky voice*) gifts, whose destiny is, of course, to save the world/empire/land/insert area here. Don't worry I'm not spoiling anything. They tell you as much in the first 10 minutes of the game. Now that the unpleasentness is out of the way. The game play is fairly solid. I'm not a fan of the over-the-top visuals for guard (the yellow force field) and fierce attacks (the blue lightning build-up). Focus is pretty cool, I like how it fades into a grey-scale and slows time down. Pretty neat. I'm glad to see that there is finally a semi-RPG (lets be honest, I have not seen much in the way of roleplaying yet) using a combat engine which doesn't have any sheen of turn-based mechanics. They might be there UNDER the gameplay, but I don't have to deal with them. Overall I don't like the story, but the game play makes up for it in pretty big ways. The graphics are pretty, the music is cool, but I'm a story/gameplay primarily person. Not sure how I feel about the leveling system, yet. Time will tell. As for strategy, I don't use any one strategy. I like to try new things, different combinations, etc...

Of the three main characters(I say main, but its a loose term. I really mean the three narrators), Rourke's Marv was definetely the best. Hartigan was... Hartigan, but I don't think Willis really drove it home. Clive Owen was... well, I didn't know what to expect with him, so I wasn't let down, but bored would fit it. As for Jessica Alba being ugly... you guys drunk? I wouldn't say she is the hottest girl ever, but ugly? Talk about a skewd view.

My entire system revolves around the theory of "practice makes perfect." There are no "level ups" precisely, but in a way there is.

Damn it... The title of my campaign was/is the Symphony of the Seven Sorrows. Looks like I have to rename it. *Shakes fist from his porch.*

Mreh - I developed my own classes, leveless system. Everyone who plays it loves the freedom, loves the potential, but dislike the way experience is recorded and how long combat can take. Essentially it would be great for a CRPG, but stinks for PnP because of how the XP system works.

As usual in a debate, when the opposition has nothing to stand on, they resort to "na-uh" debate style. 213374U, Way to go, you've proven nothing, other than you lack the intelligence to maintain a civil and productive debate. The only loser here is anyone bothering to read this thread. Yutz.

Right. But that difference doesn't change the fact that you said you were forced to leave your job. That was the only assumption I was making, and judging from your original post, that's what anyone would understand. You later changed that because it was convinient to you, but that's irrelevant. So your point is moot. No, I was forced to leave a job. Maybe your reading comprehension isn't as high as you proclaim. The difference between being fired and being laid off isn't small. "That was the only assumption I was making, . . ." No you made the leap from "forced to leave" to fired. Huge difference. Instance one. I was laid off because the company was folding. Instance two. Simply because something is in the same paragraph doesn't mean they share exact instancing. I dodged nothing. The only thing that is being dodged is the WHOLE issue, and its being dodged by you. Any moron can read a thread that says employees were fired despite an OVERALL COMPANY GAIN. Any moron can take the stance of "being laid off sucks." Oh my god. Epiphany. Thats not the issue. The issues here are: a) Should a company be permited to hire or fire people they wish? b) What are the whole facts leading up to this lay-off? Was the division(s) laid off profiting or signifigantly involved in the profit? Were entire divisions laid off? Was it a few people from a variety of divisions? You guys aren't looking at the whole issue, you're spouting off about "social obligations" which simply ARE NOT there. "Then you went on mumbling corporate excuses I couldn't care less about, because for starters, your guess is as good as mine." This is called a dodge, folks. Those aren't excuses, they are signifigant and important pieces of a puzzle. For short-sighted argumentative people, like yourself, the only pieces that matter to you are the ones that belong in the corner you're working on. In reality, you should worry about your corner and the rest of the puzzle that the other people are working on. You are making less and less sense as time goes by. Free-dom n. The condition of being free of restraints. If you own a company it is your property. You should be able to do whatever you want with your property. If you want to fire someone from your company you should have the freedom to do so. Individial rights and liberties? What does that have to do with a job? Again, you are NOT entitled to a job. You earn one. You have the right, and are free to work. If you lack the skills or motivation to work, you will be fired, laid off, or simply not hired at all. Your posts have insinuated it. You don't know the law is on their side, because as you have GENEROUSLY shown, you not only don't know the whole picture, you're only looking at small pieces and taking your stand. All well and good in your world (which btw - its funny you keep making comments about people not being in the real world when you clearly have your head in the clouds when it comes to business). I don't know the whole scenario either. Never claimed to, nor do I care to. My stance is simple and doesn't need facts. Companies should have the right to hire or fire whoever they want. Your stance is strictly based on the assumption that these people a) are ENTITLED to working and b) they gave the company no reason to fire them. A is just plain wrong. B you cannot possibly stand on from this: Welcome to the real world, where you have no knowledge of what you're saying, but take a stand anyway. Its not dodging the issue, yutz. The point of it was that despite being essentially useless for the first 3 monthes I then showed them that I was an asset to the company and that they should keep me around. Low and behold, I was. Workers rights should be things like disability, safe work environs, freedom from harassment, vacation time, minimum wage. Workers rights are not job security.

Huh? Can't you remember what you just wrote or is it you're just lying? There is a HUGE difference between being laid off and fired. Or do you not know the difference? Fired = bad. If you're fired it means you were singled out for bad performance. Laid off = Less bad. If you're laid off it means you're let go because your division wasn't performing well, the company can no longer afford you, etc... If you're fired you won't get a good summary when applying for a future job. If you're laid off you very well could. Well, that's just a mixture of assumptions and plain lack of reading comprehension skills. There were no such 1.5 million employees. 1.5 billion were the profits of the company. Feeling confused, are we? But don't worry about all that stupid real world nonsense. All you should care about is the little world you have made up in your head in which you run your company as you like and don't give a f*ck about anything else. *chuckles* This is what happens when people have no leg to stand on. Rather than posting evidence or support for their position they point out minor, insignifigant mistakes in the other persons post. Big. Deal. So I didn't get the number of people who were let go right. That matters HOW? I'm sorry I didn't bother to memorize the numbers, feel free to remove the thumb from your posterior. No, in Finland, you don't. Let's just hope the example will be followed by more countries. You lose. Good thing I don't work or own a business in anti-freedom Finland. BTW - It doesn't say the employees WON the law suit, it just says they're filing suit. Try again. Do you really believe that? Boy, you're even more gullible than I thought. The actual worker efficiency is only one of the many factors that come into play when deciding who is to be fired. And it's definitely not the one with the most weight. Every job I have worked at I have been promoted. I am not charismatic. I am not social. I work hard. I get the job done. I get the job done well. I get the job done fast. In less than a year I was promoted from data entry clerk to head of the division, and then again to database manager. Hell, in that job for the first 3 monthes of my employment I was in and out of the office because of a personal problem I had. My attendance was horrible, but despite this I was still promoted because of my work ethic and performance.

I never said I was fired. I effectively walked off the job. Since your whole post revolves around the assumption that I was fired, your entire post is bunk. You must EARN your job. Its a fact. Whether or not the company was profiting should have nothing to do whether they keep the 1.5 million employees or not. Did you stop to consider that maybe the sections laid off were not performing as expected? Or maybe that despite a profitable quarter/year that they were losing money for the COMING quarter by keeping them around? No. You didn't, at least judging all your posts you didn't. You're too busy spouting off about a "social obligation" that simply doesn't exist. If I own a company I'll hire and fire whomever I want, whenever I want. If you don't perform as I think you should, you're gone. If you meet my expectations you stay. If you exceed them, you get promoted. The ONLY obligation is as follows. If you are employed, you are expected to do your job. The employer is expected to pay you. Unless you sign a work contract which specifically states you have a certain tenure within the company, you can be fired any time, for any reason. Thats how business works, that is how is should work. Socialism does not work.

I've been laid off because a company was not "performing as expected." I went through 2 years of being paid 2/3 what my actual payrate was, watching people be let go all around me. I was kept aboard because I worked hard, always met and exceeded my quota, and maintained an "excellent work ethic" through it all. When you are an asset to a company they keep you around. When you are not they fire you. That is how it should be. You are not entitled a job, you earn it.

No, but what does that have to do with employment? I am not buying, nor selling, nor throwing away people. I am employing them. If they do not perform as I feel they should whether or not I am making money, people can expect to be fired. If 5 people can do the work of the 10 people I have employed, you had better bet I'll fire five of them, ESPECIALLY, if the 10 are only meeting the same value that 5 people should be. The companies profit should have nothing to do with whether or not people are hired or fired.

Literally every dictionary I've checked has this spelling CLEARLY labeled as "Chiefly British." There is no i in the ending. It is aluminum not aluminium. I'm sure I could disect it a bit, but mreh. Maybe we should just conquer Britain because they don't bother to elect their royals, at all? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Be sure to check British dictionaries next time too, because they invented the language...just because Webster wanted to make corrections to the English language doesn't mean that the rest of the world follows American English. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No single individual, nor even one country "invented" english. This idea is simplistically idiotic. English evolved over time from old english (sometimes called Anglish). It altered when the vikings began to conquer the isle(still seen today if you visit the eastern parts of the isle, even in town names, store names, etc...). It evolved further when the french invaded and transforumed the language further. It has changed an innumerable amount of times, and continues to do so. So unless you want to start pronouncing jail as gaile(how it was originally spelled when introduced to english), relax on the "old way or the highway" theory. Humphry Davy, originally named it aluminium, then aluminum to conform with the latin derivative. He was then persuaded to go back to -ium to conform with the -ium naming convention (which he had originally started for other elements, like Sodium). P.S. Webster actually used the -ium ending in his dictionaries. The first Webster's to use the -um spelling was in 1913, nearly a century after the original, in 1828.

As much as I like John Cleese, I have one problem with his little tangent. Literally every dictionary I've checked has this spelling CLEARLY labeled as "Chiefly British." There is no i in the ending. It is aluminum not aluminium. I'm sure I could disect it a bit, but mreh. Maybe we should just conquer Britain because they don't bother to elect their royals, at all?

... is poorly out of date. Sadly I don't have enough time to follow every RPG in development anymore (It ceased being my job to do so) as a result the thread sort of lost its usefulness. Many of the games are out, canceled, etc... If someone wanted to compile a new list perhaps it could be stickied, but the current one is fairly useless, I believe. I think it'd be a good idea to de-sticky it, and if a new thread emerged (who knows, I might make one at some point), then sticky that one.

Did you ever get the TAWP SECRAT ending? I could never execute the 360 degree hack slice on the dread-demon Krssssshektaa'spitol. Plus I never found the four rings of holy smiting +15.

KotOR 2 would be in my top 10. KotOR 1 would not.

Danke, Phosphor.

I think you missed the point of the question... it wasn't what era the best titles were released, but what era your favourite titles were released (which includes adjustment for first impressions, nostalgia etc.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. I didn't miss the point. I equate quality with favorites. I would bet money that most people do, as well, but nostalgia is, as I said, the killer of reasoning. People play newer games over older games because they're better. to me, if you would rather play Ninja Gaiden 2004 over the original, yet claim the original is your favorite, you're being irrational. Lets even use a more recent example. If you would rather play Everquest II over the original, or Warcraft III over the original, yet claim that the original is your favorite, I think you don't understand the concept of "favorite." Ofcourse mood can vary, but its a general rule. I'll use ice cream as an example. If you buy chocolate ice cream 90% of the time, but claim vanilla is your favorite because it was your first flavor, and you enjoyed it so much, back then, its not exactly a true statement to say vanilla is your favorite if you are consistantly choosing chocolate over it.