Tigranes

Be nice, children.

They're all unrealistic, though. Does it really matter which portal-shifting, planet-jumping, tightsuit-wearing sci-fi story is more realistic? I guess it helps the suspension of disbelief, but they're all pretty silly anyway. But then, it won the People's Choice Awards. That means everything you know, the People's Choice Awards. That means billions and billions of people got up and said, I choo, choo, choooose Star Trek!

It's not out yet, right? Maybe I can finally finish Chapter 5, its currently unplayable on my crappy comp.

WTF, indeed. I mainly won't get a console because there are so many games on the PC I love to play, and it will be a long time before I've played all these old games to death. It's enough for me. Now, I would definitely get a console if I brought friends over to my place to play or if I flatted with other gamers, but that's not the case, so I see little need. The only console games that have seriously interested me since I sold my PS1 8 years ago are Ico, Fire Emblem, Mass Effect, and a couple others that I've forgotten about. Still waiting for my friend to lend me his xbox though, then I will also try Assassin's Creed and Lost Odyssey.

'Small size' will probably cease to matter as storage capacity for all manner of affordable gadgets increase at a dramatic fashion. Portability, however, will probably remain a concern for as long as we travel the way we do. DD will probably take a fair chunk out of movie sales, but it probably won't destroy standard sales.

Fair enough though. This RL friend I was recommending NWN2 to for his new computer basically came out with, "it sounds much better than NWN, but why only 30 levels? NWN1 had 40." After a while he said that's fine, and he expected the second xpack to take him up to level 40 anyway. This coming from a 27 year old who's played Fallout, may get on Torment, played BG, etc (so not a Halo/Half-Life/whatever tradition). I too enjoy high levels, though I'd take a low level campaign as well, and I wish epic gameplay would be more differentiated, so I think it's sort of inevitable and acceptable that Obsids would go for it. Wouldn't Mysteries of Westgate and such premier modules fill the gap for low-level campaigns though? Or at least low-to-med/high?

I love how every single damn RPG these days use a different dimension. Even Sonic! Clearly, this means we will have rollercoaster rides filled with "PRESS THIS BUTTON" prompts, but with attitude as well. Maybe they will whip you if you're not fast enough.

Sorry guys, I meant their main characters. They just exist to say: -Yes! -What? No! NOOOO! -Okay. -Plot Item/Character/Place X? What/Who/Where is it? -Really? -Listen guys, this isn't about any of that. It's about love. It's about pure, red, sweet, passionate, country-crossing, tights-bursting, juicy love, like chocolate with almonds inside. We're doing this because of the chocolate. I mean love. We're going to beat the final boss, ride the deus ex machina out of that ridiculously deep and treacherous dungeon filled with the entire Crustacean populace, and then we're going to watch a long, long, FMV. Now let's mosey! The best rats, by the way, exist in the form of a certain BG1 prelude journal entry.

See, this is why we can't have any Muslims on here. You naughty people. Look at all those Muslims crying in the corner. Huh? Huh?

Well, it doesn't really matter what items you start with - hell, in IWD2 you just get a worthless quarterstaff. You're not really supposed to start with a lot of stuff, but you'll find items very quickly and easily. IWD2 does have a very good range of crazy items IMO, as you progress.

Squaresoft would be perfect for it, seeing as how their characters never talk, either.

I was all happy that this thread reached second page, because I thought while I was at work we had got a lot of good arguments. I won't say whether I was disappointed in that regard or not. Azarkon perhaps was lured (and I don't use that verb with any malice against Sand) into making his argument seem more apologetic than it is. It's not about "burying our head in the sand and hoping China becomes peaceful and nice all by itself". It's not about, necessarily, right and wrong - is democracy right? Is it the best way to go? Is our version of freedom and representative government so good that we must impose it on everyone? Maybe, maybe not. Not the point. The point, very concisely, is: because our very conception of the 'proper' nation is founded on our ideas of what human rights, what good government, what freedom, is; anything that contravenes those ideas, or any nation that is founded on ideas and perspectives different to ours, is seen as at best ineffective, at worst criminal; and a threat to the ideas of our own nation. It is indeed naive to say in this day and age, that it doesn't matter how many people China kill in their own Tiananmen Squares, as long as its not American. That's not the point here. The point is just as we feel China's alternative logics of government are both morally offensive and politically dangerous, so do China feel that America's obsessions with self-expression and individual flagrance, its trade for what it might see as political stability for a Hollywood election fiasco that sees people with less than 50% vote get presidency and candidates dance, sing, cry and sell stickers for votes - morally offensive and politically dangerous. And if they do, you can say its wrong because your values are right and theirs is not; that's perfectly fine. But don't expect them to nod their head and say, oh, right, we should de-militarise, we should cooperate with US every step of the way, what we are doing is unreasonable. And - this is what Azarkon wants to say, too, I think - because America is a lot more outspoken, effective and active about imposing its own beliefs on others than any other country, other countries have much more reason to fear America than America needs fear other countries. The fear is much more immediate within the radicals of Iran than for the Americans that 'fear' China or North Korea. Which makes perfect sense. It may not be 'right', but it makes sense. That's the distinction here. There's no use replying to such an argument by saying "Yeah, but they're [evil/anti-free/not doing it right/breaching fundamental ideas about government]". Of course they are, in our epistemology, in our worldview! But just marching forward with our worldview and kicking everything else aside in its path, while righteous and brave, is not the best solution. Evidence: terrorism of this decade. Edit: finally, when we are confronted with evidence of US being the 'bad boy' in things like freedom or human rights, it is all too easy to say "we're still the best at being free" and point to Tiananmen Square or whatnot. But just like getting an A in your maths test doesn't excuse you for blowing up the parents' car engine the night before, those pieces of evidence must be recognised (without letting them get to us in some big US=SUPERBAD conspiracy theory). We have to understand that, while, in our view, we recognise no country can be perfect and US is damn good in some respects, in others' view, where the US is forcing a worldview and logic of government they don't agree with on them by force and discourse, those pieces of evidence fuel the fire very well - and understandably so. It's about understanding, Sand. It's not about "keeping things simple" for yourself and charging on until there are no more enemies left; that is an endless, unwinnable battle where other methods might do a little better.

You mean North, right? Azarkon's commentary tries to describe something that is slightly off the perspective in which we normally consider these things; so, though not for the lack of eloquence, it might well draw the familiar response cycles of "but at least America is democratic and free" and "Bush is nothing compared to Kim Jong Il". I hope it doesn't devolve into another aimless round of such lone bombshells; the argument at stake, as I understand it, is not that America is going to destroy the world and we have to fight it, or that Islamic suicide bombers are justified, of course. We don't even need to go there. The point is that we have seen the way in which the citizens of America can be mobilised, or at least shepherded, into wars based not on concrete evidence of devastating threat, but concrete evidence of minor potential threat, the memory of 9/11 and a lot of rhetoric. This does not give any sort of evidence that America is ready to embark on Hitler-like invasions at the drop of the next demagogue + terrorist attack combo: I don't think that's what Azarkon means, either. What it does tell us is that there is a presence of a sociopolitical and epistemological mechanism that could in the future produce such a situation. Sorry, that's a lot of waffletalk. What do I mean? I mean that nobody is saying America is ready to gung ho bomb the world; simply that America has demonstrated a mechanism by which divisive and fearful rhetoric, shallow stereotypes of the Other that do not seek to understand why they are so opposed to America, a strong tradition of the discourse of patriotism, freedom and policing of the world, and the current American dominance in the field of ready, effected violence (as opposed to, say, China - see the article) all combine to wage war on almost any nation without a strong history of Western-style democracy. This mechanism has so far operated in relatively small scales compared to a world war, and even then has met a *lot* of resistance (though, it must be noted, lots of Americans saying "oh hell no" didn't stop America as a country from doing it anyway). Thus, there is no evidence at the moment to suggest the impending threat or capability of America Gung Ho . But the mechanism to produce it exists, and if that mechanism persists or even develops while the external factors formulate, then sure, it's perfectly possible. There is a lot to be said about the fact that the leaders America would label as 'dangerous' may be hated in their own countries for their human rights atrocities or their unwillingness to leave the throne, or take a hundred wives or whatnot, they are not as villified by their own populace for refusing to cooperate with America as much as the US wants, or for military programmes designed to fend off probing influences of US diplomats and advisors. The Western international political discourse, especially in mass media, demands the relationship of mentor and student between the West and some countries; they believe these countries have to adopt the same form of government they have already, and will give money, refuse to give money, threaten, cajole, subvert and spread propaganda to achieve it. This discourse is naturally unhappy with, and wary of, any massive growth of military power or any lack of cooperation from these countries. But to say that they are not cooperating with the US/West is to absolutely forego the possibility that the issue the US was demanding cooperation about, might have been their business altogether. It's like telling your neighbour that you need his cooperation to domesticate his wife just like you did, and if he remains a bit skeptical, you advertise to the world what an uncooperative, un-modern man the neighbour is. You can replace wife domestication with 'democracy and freedom', with all the connotations of the blue sky and happy smiley families, but the logic remains the same. There are manifold reasons for these countries to build up their military, to not smile and say yes every time an American president says something, to hide certain things from the US (it's not like they're exactly open about certain things, either); many of these reasons are hidden or obscured for all of us that are exposed to Western news media simply because of the discourses that we are inundated in. As long as we are told and we think to ourselves the diplomatic struggles between Pakistan and US as "uncooperative Pakistan", and never consider "pushy and invasive US", this obscuration by discourse will continue. I'm not happy with how I've expressed many of these above thoughts - this is certainly not a swipe at the US as a whole. Just as I am eager to uncover the hidden 'vices' of US, if you might, I am just as eager to recognise that there are so many things the US and the West have brought the world that we are too quick to forget. But there is no wisdom in saying the idea of an America Gung Ho is paranoid because it is making mountains out of anthills; the mechanism is there. There is no wisdom in saying that everything about the discontent of countries like Iran or North Korea, everything about their policies and all of their perspectives and opinions should be disqualified or condemned because they are grouped together with discourses of Hitler or suicide bombers (that's like saying the US' massive achievements on human rights should all be discounted because the US condoned water-boarding). To do so is confrontational; to do so is very short-term in one's thought. The US is right now concerned with scraping off the boils erupting in its skin; effort too needs to be expended in understanding what it was in the bloodstream, the skin, that produced these boils. You can't treat obesity by torturous diet; you treat it by changing your lifestyle and eating patterns. And that kind of effort involves not soldiers, speeches everyone can rally to, ultimatums; it involves a social change, a change in the discourses we use to talk about and think about these issues. That is why I feared this thread might devolve into the familiar discursive patterns outilned at the start of this post. Perhaps it's too much to hope it would be otherwise; I certainly didn't express myself as well as I should have, probably. But ah well. It's a forum.

I knew it! America's Army! This is a battle he will make even less ground in than usual, and he has certainly picked a weird time, when msot people have forgotten about the Defence Dept's involvement with games.

I knew it! America's Army! This is a battle he will make even less ground in than usual, and he has certainly picked a weird time, when msot people have forgotten about the Defence Dept's involvement with games.

I'm at work correcting the personal information of 437 scientists who are asking for money. Because you know, even when they're an Oxford graduate with a PhD in blah blah and earn tens of thousands of US dollars a year, they still typo their email.

Yes.

Actually, it would very much be the United States' problem to have all those angry states snapping at them whenever they try to do (or not do) anything, and it would severely hamper the administration responsible's hope of getting things done, internationally or nationally. Unless they pulled the price of beer down to five cents or something.

*cough* While we discuss the line where bugs become big evil nasty bugs of game-breaking doom, maybe we forgot about the line between arguing and handbags. Now, I can perfectly sympathise with the logic that even the best of codes will always have bugs, and QA exists precisely because it's not possible for a genius programmer to just have a wee glance and say "a-yep, there's a game-breaking bug right there". I can't program anything myself, but I think I get that. I'm not rubbishing Sand's argument either, though to me it feels like his complaint should be better directed against the development team itself and its mode of organisation, rather than the programmers; it would still be a valid complaint to raise against Tim Cain/Troika. You can program really well and still have game-breaking bugs; you can QA extensively and there can still be serious bugs; but the sheer quantity and ferocity of the bugs encountered on all three of Troika's productions are perhaps better attributed to the way in which Troika scheduled and organised its QA, and had its programmers react to the QA. I mean, I suppose it could have been that the code was so full of back-doors and work-arounds that the more they touched it the more the sand-castle fell apart, but I can't possibly make that assertion without having even looked at the said code. Or am I even farther off the rails here?

A katana goes very well with a pipe.

Uh... yeah. Switch gnome with halfling on all of those. :blush10: Don't know what happened there, I've played that game at least fifty times. But then, probably helps my point, eh?

I always disliked Mazzy because she so flawlessly adopted the Paladin unto herself. She was basically a human Paladin, with an extra bit of angst because of her unaccepted gnomeness, which could well have been instead "They said I'm too short to be a Paladin!". And I realised that this was because apart from her character sheet, there is nothing that signifies her as a gnome, or Patrick either. There is nothing eccentric, unique or coloured in anything she does or any of her circumstances that depict her as a gnome; in that case, how easy it must be to just 'be' a Paladin - she's basically a short human! This of course isn't the case with all gnomes, no - that was more of a tangential rant I suppose. But it is difficult to break a stereotype once it is so set in stone, and maybe WOTC feel it is better to abandon them and introduce new races later on, or make the existing races even more unique. I hope.

I believe that was Pool of Radiance 2.

Yeah, two screenshots from a tech demo and some vague PR-lines doesn't really count. I guess if DA is on track, we will start to see the PR machine really get into gear this year.

Considering NWN1 took 5 years, Dragon Age 5 years isn't really that worrying I think. Its just that we got more PR/info on NWN1 back then; it was still a hell of a wait for anyone who remembers it (and the Bioboards back then).