Llyranor

I believe paobing is appolie's long-lost sibling.

Buzz > u

Consoles, meh.

Well, it really sounds much MUCH more interesting than the competition's main title. FFXII should be ok, but as you say, it's pretty much just a rehash.

I GOT ME A FREE DS!

Ah, yes, I forgot about FM4. A fun game in its own right. It was well-worth a rental. Not sure if I would have bought it, though. Hmm. As for Lost Odyssey, I particularly like the paragraph you quoted. Emotional stories, heh.

No one really knows. No one really wants to know.

Yeah, it sounds interesting enough. Haven't been too impressed with Square's latest titles (FFX being the last one I had any remote interest in). Trailer has some nice music and style: http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=5860&type=wmv

....... like Baldur's Gate?

Hmm. Looking forward to NWN2 DA Supreme Commander Company of Heroes Day of Defeat: Source Team Fortress II Tactica Online Civilization IV

Meh, Ubisoft. Lunar just isn't Lunar without Working Designs backing it up.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded!

Says YOU! *signs up for free spam-mail!*

I want a new Close Combat game But noooooo, they had to make a freaking FPS from the series.

You guys should get Nexus - The Jupiter Incident. It's a tactical fleet simulator more than a RTS, and it freaking kicks butt. There's a demo available.

DON'T REMIND ME I could care less about the prequel ships, but I want some OT action

And it looks like SupCom will have auto-management of resources by the bigarse commander as well. My main gripes with Empire at War is, as mentioned, the big campaign limited to 1v1, but also the freaking 2d plane for space battles. If you do space battles, you put a 3rd plane. 'Too complicated for players', meh.

Empire at War, meh. The big campaign thingie is nice and all, but that only works 1v1 online, and online is where I'll spend most of my time, so no. AoE3 has potential. Though most of its features are just standard RTS (I never got into AoE1/2, I'm not actually a big fan of 'standard' RTS), the persistent homecity feature sounds really nice. Now that SupCom has been announced, though, I've lost all interest in this title :D Company of Heroes looks pretty nice. Fully destructible environments (sure, AoE3 had physics too, but tanks > cannons). What sounds really interesting is the AI. Soldiers seeking cover, peeking to fire some shots and go back to their hiding spot. 2000 animations per unit :D And the animations will reflect what the AI is thinking as well. Very cool. I used to be interested in Dragonshard. Then Liquid had the intelligence to scrap the nexus building system (the main coolest feature the game would have had) because it was 'too complicated' for testers. Meh. Chris Taylor needs to merge with MCA to form the ultimate game designer.

1993!

Hmm, I wonder if his NWN mods are available.

Magical Volo is right. It took me less than 20 yrs to complete as well. Closer to 15 for me.

I think, deep down, RE4 pisses all of us off.

PURGE THE UNCLEAN

Mirrors http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2738 Overall it's ok, but I haven't been overly impressed. And yes, the demo has jets and helis.

Don't try to pull a Volo on me. I didn't say that removing violence from games will eradicate violence in society. But it's undeniable that controlling violence in entertainment will decrease the desensitization, which may in turn decrease the chances of certain people from going berserk. Decrease, not eradicate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is an interesting and worthy hypothesis, but I see no evidence to back it up. I see a lot of people trying to make hysterical connections between video violence and RL violence, but so far none have managed it. I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that -- depending on the viewer's psychology -- video violence can make the viewer more or less likely to commit a seriously violent attack. Even in the previously quoted study, the "long term" effects were equated with "delinquency", not out and out violence. Mahatma Ghandi advocated social delinquency as a tactic to peacefully change the British government's attitude to India, and not many people regard him as a violent person. No. You are making analogies between things that aren't related, and then you are trying to forcefully find a relation. Products that only hurt whoever uses them shouldn't be banned, because the consequences of using such products only affect you. Violent games, if they were proven to lift violence tolerance IRL, don't fall into that category. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And yet I don't hear you arguing to ban the drinking of alcohol excessively, and there is a clear and demonstrable link to societal violence and a multi-billion dollar cost associated with preventable diseases and even loss of productivity. As I have been maintaining this argument is completely out of proportion; the fact that a few unstable people kill people and the unrelated fact that there now exist video games with violent content seems to be the lurid preoccupation. Why not manage the real problems, like the dispossed and root causes of misery in society, rather than fiddle while Rome burns by removing violence from video games that aren't even present in the lives of those who commit crimes? It's just madness. Any particular reason for your use of the chemical generic denomination of caffeine instead of its common name? What are you trying to accomplish? A word of advice: using convoluted arguments in long posts adorned with archaic or specific language will only result in people ignoring your posts. The ability to convey a point in as less words as possible is also the mark of a good conversationalist. But at any rate, caffeine only acts as an excitant. It's not likely to have any psychological effects or scramble your violence tolerance threshold. I have never seen a similar argument over it to the one we are having about violent games. As for sugar and illnesses, read the previous argument. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The good reason was it was late and I had just been playing DE:IW and I liked the link. (I'm sure it didn't take you long to google it's meaning.) It was also irrelevant to the point I was making, being that there are other more worthy targets for the nannies of our society to fret over. Caffeine and sugar in high doses can cause errors in judgement: I'll bet more people have caused accidents under the ifluence of excess caffeine and sugar than under the influence of violent video games. But anyway, see my previous point, which explains that there is a demonstrable and proven cost to society from other areas -- that demand our attention more readily. Sex as in intercourse between two (or more) consenting adults, with all the variations you can think of. But once you go further, you are more than likely hurting someone against their will. That is where the line is drawn. Again, you are trying to associate two different things that aren't really related. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why is it between consenting adults? that's an assumption. What about a masochist? They delight in someone hurting them, should we portray that because it is between two consenting adults?