alanschu

Are they forcing you to at least keep her on the ship? I'd assume so given his statement. The forced party member mechanics is a bit odd I agree. If you'd prefer, they could make the game so that all the NPCs are ones that Patrick likes. This is why fans are stupid. Companies get bashed for towing the party line, yet they use their words against them when they're being honest. Of course, why someone is interested in the sequel to a game he hates is even more entertaining. So you edit your post before someone can catch you and then you call people stupid? Edit: Heh http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/09/27...powerful-bitch/ Fans are stupid. These are the same people that bitch about everything being stale and unoriginal, while at the same time then getting upset because things are different and don't follow an established archetype. BioWare's boards are filled with them. I did edit my post, because I realized that I was misinterpreting what Peter was saying. I have nothing to hide. When I read Weekes' comment about leaving her on the ship, I took it from a standpoint of "He still recruited her." After looking at it again, and remembering the ME2 is different than DA, I realized (upon looking at Purkake's post) that leaving the person on the ship meant that he was NOT taking the character with him, not that he was still recruiting the person in spite of her character. Beside, the comment that I edited out was about how a character doesn't need to be annoying for you to not like the character, in response to Purkake's post. Did you even see that, or are you simply looking "OMG the post was edited!" Most of the time my edits are because I add something else to the post (like this line). You seemed to have taken the stupid comment personally. Maybe there's some merit to you thinking I accused you of being stupid. I do think your comment is stupid, because, well, it is Clearly because Weekes' doesn't care for the character, he thinks his fellow writer is a ****ty writer. I know you don't like Mass Effect, and you're one of "those fans" that follows the game simply so you can take everything and make it look as evil as possible, but realllly. At least Monte Carlo's perspective is simply from a lot of pessimism and caution about BioWare's claims.

Rome was way awesomer, with all the weird units and stuff. Rome introduced the retarded diplomacy. I was actually able to have significantly long durations of peace in the first Medieval, and wars that went on for a significant amount of time with no fighting reverted back to peace. Rome did introduce the significantly better map, which is good and what I love about it's strategic component. But frankly, the messed up diplomacy, as well as the (at least in Medieval) hardcoded cap for how many turns the player could be at peace before the AI would declare war on you, just aggravates me to no end. I'm sure it exists again in Empire, as I have had stupid wars declared on me by Bavaria, despite the fact that I have 13x more provinces than it, and a huge standing army. I know the game is "Total War" but I'd prefer if they actually enabled the ability to have some actual empire building in the game again. Especially with Empire abstracting out a lot of the buildings and scattering them around the province (which I like).

Wait a tick, I have misread Patrick's comments. Are they forcing you to at least keep her on the ship? I'd assume so given his statement. The forced party member mechanics is a bit odd I agree. If you'd prefer, they could make the game so that all the NPCs are ones that Patrick likes. This is why fans are stupid. Companies get bashed for towing the party line, yet they use their words against them when they're being honest. Of course, why someone is interested in the sequel to a game he hates is even more entertaining.

I'm messing around with Empire. I still feel the first Medieval was the apex of the franchise (never played Shogun).

A character doesn't need to be annoying for someone to dislike that character. A character that you hate can still be a well written character. I'd wager that Patrick Weekes actually likes writing of the character and how she's added and portrayed to the game, because of the reasons why he dislikes the character in the context of the game.

As a general question, since I can see how this is an issue for other social services like welfare, how do people "take advantage" of a universal health care system?

Exactly. The reason why I didn't like the fallback onto the constitution as a defense for why the government should provide police services is that it is, at it's core, a set of rules decided upon by a bunch of people at a particular time. State that you feel the government should provide police services for a reason of actual merit (which you did), rather than saying "because the constitution says they should." As you acknowledge, the had the constitution been different, it probably would have resulted in a different society. If someone's reasoning for supporting the government doing something is simply because "the constitution says so," I consider that a fairly weak point, and doesn't do much more than to say that that person is a slave to the constitution. At least you actually gave an explanation for it. So couldn't UHC be implemented in a way that makes it more preventative? My country (Canada) is already trying to do this because of the realization that UHC can be expensive. Ironically, one of the giant criticisms against UHC, is that apparently people will "take advantage" of the system. This would mean extra checkups, even when perhaps they aren't necessary. However, increased use of the medical care system will also mean more people finding conditions before they start to become prohibitively expensive. My dollar is working persistently more for other people than it is for me though. Crime isn't evenly distributed. Nor is the application of law enforcement funding. Depending on who you ask, the deterrence of law enforcement is suspect as well. At the same time, the correlation between mental health and criminal behaviour is also there. I'll agree. But at the same time, I'm at a stage right now where I really can't afford to miss work due to illness, and I especially can't avoid work because someone else is sick. I eat healthy and (usually... I have been bad lately) exercise to stay fit, but it doesn't make me immune to disease. I'm sure a lot of other people are in the same situation, and for that person that has the desire to NOT go on welfare (if available) to support their family, sometimes you can't be picky about making sure that you only work for an employer that is willing to provide you with the appropriate health benefits. I suppose you could make me pay for it directly, but I'm at the stage where I don't have much money beyond meeting my basic needs. Though thank goodness I am single, renting a room in my friend's house, and don't have any kids, because that means that the chances of a sudden financial emergency that can't be solved beyond "I won't pay for something leisurely today" is pretty low.

From what I understand, legal shenanigans will ALSO prevent Sega from just coming out and saying "Yo it's delayed."

Which should have been all you need to see the subpar writing. As for Patrick Weekes comment, his "loathing" of the character isn't that he hates the character's design. He actually likes it. It'd hardly be the first time that a character was written that the person hated the character.

I know some people that indeed think it's worth $60 just for the fire fights.

The game probably won't be out for quite some time. Certainly not 2009.

Why do you have any interest? The general consensus was you thought ME was not a particularly good game.

I doubt that redistributing wealth to public schools is in the US Constitution.

Have they ever given a specific date, or were the specific dates (outside of October 2009) taken mostly from retail sites? I haven't really followed the news clippings of the game.

I was decidedly short-fused for at least the first year after my brother died when I was 13. Having said that, I don't know anyone that would fit the bill. However, the people that I know and hang out with are probably not the best, nor most random, sample. The conservative justice types certainly likes to paint the image that some people are out and out angry/hostile.

Are they angry all the time? Based on what I consider angry, I wouldn't even consider Subject Zero to be "angry" based on her video, so what exactly do you mean by angry?

Awesome. I might have to reinstall. It helps with the "having no money" when I can replay some older games

Haha if that isn't a troll post I don't know what is. Bethesda? Honestly muffin. We're not talking about Fallout here kthxbai. If the delay of a game causes this much issue for you, you have deeper problems to worry about.

I don't have an issue with people being angry. Depending on the nature of the mission, it might even make sense (thinking Dirty Dozen here).

Nope.

Then they'd just cancel the game, rather than delay it.

Meh, I won't be dishonest. That, and I am working on DA!

I find the video pretty average, though I do think that the swearing is added much like how a teenager swears to act tuff. I didn't like the language as it seemed forced. It could also be because the big "bleep" just makes it that much worse.

Unless the extension was to add new content (I'd be surprised), I wouldn't expect much more from the chargen options.