Tale

I'll have to agree with you 100%. The game is literally about a group of kids who are part of an extracurricular club where they save the world! They have to juggle fighting Shadows with studying, exams, and making new friends. You'd expect it to be an anime with the main character always running late to all his classes because he stayed up all night fighting. Maybe that's what I like. It's NOT standard, it's entirely new to me as I've never played a dating sim style game (and it's not all about trying to score with chicks, anyway). If it was just the dungeon crawling, I'd hate it.

So, some info about the game. It's part Japanese dating sim, part dungeon crawler. All the story relates to the dungeon crawling, but you'll probably spend most of your time engaging your character in his social life. It seems a weird mix, but it's working for me. 10 hours in after only two days, I can't put it down.

I wonder if they'll get Harrison Ford for voiceover work.

Last time I had this it was power supply due to installing a new card. If it was overheating, I'd think you'd see some sort of artifacting beforehand. Or at least occasionally.

Tale: Roger Ebert is a large inferior.

I seriously hope they release Fes (the "Director's Cut) in the US. They went so far as to include a soundtrack CD and a hardbound artbook, so they obviously have a lot of care about this release.

Vista only?

I love Morrowind. I find it surprising that Oblivion turned out so crap because it got rid of the stuff that made Morrowind successful. An interesting unique world and a far more reasonable levelling system.

... I'll never view these forums the same again.

It didn't have particularly long load times when I played through it last week. But, I thought it an overall incredible game. Even if it didn't have the depth of RPG mechanics that it's predecessor had.

My copy of Persona 3 just arrived! It wasn't supposed to arrive until Wednesday. I guess I'll be spending this weekend watching japanese high school kids put guns to their heads!

I think the problem with Ebert's acceptance of games is that his exposure to them is pretty narrow. We have our widely publicized titles, such as the GTAs, Halos, and the like. But blatantly ignored publicly are the more narrative efforts. I've discussed at length on multiple forums "games that have made you cried" and "villains you actually hated." Emotional reactions I've seen come far more often and powerfully than I've ever heard of from books or movies.

You qualify your books among the "good", but you speak only of the broad field of video games. I can find for you plenty of trashy books that will fail to make you smarter, more cultured, or broaden your experience. Is it even remotely fair to compare the likes of GTA to Gone With the Wind? You've played a poor selection of videogames, then.

That same claim could could just as easily apply to movies or comic books as to games. Hell, more "fine art" generally can't be seen to be very 'deep.' What's so 'deep' about the Mona Lisa?

He's a Halfling disguised as a Gnome.

The US is not a literal Democracy. It is a Representative Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. You can argue that this is still "as closely as possible" but I will argue that it is far from being reasonably referred to as a consensus. I accept this and counter with a "yeah, but we're talking about practical policy" for +2 dmg. Practicality does not contest my point. If anything, it might support it by overcomplicating the supposed consensus. What is moral for an individual should not be judged exclusively by the dealings of politicians, even if operating within their practical means. The shortcomings of the system should be considered for limiting the scope of application, not enhancing it. I call you out for arguing against your own earlier position and crit you for +12.

.223

The US is not a literal Democracy. It is a Representative Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. You can argue that this is still "as closely as possible" but I will argue that it is far from being reasonably referred to as a consensus.

Assuming they're not using any Vista only features that XP doesn't have, like virtualized memory or whatever it is they were supposed to have in DX10 that's now being moved to 10.1. Which I think would be a reasonable assumption.

By amending, do you now agree that it is not always wrong to break the law?

There is no "legal wrong" and "legal right." There is only legal and illegal. Wrong and right are strictly moral terms.

If that were the law then yes. Just because you disagree with a law does not give you the right to break that law. You should and do have the right to change that law, but not to break it. I honestly can't believe you know what you're saying here. I'm going to ask you to prove me wrong. Say that for me. Say that "It was wrong for people to protect jews in Nazi Germany." Say it out loud, run it over your tongue and then type it straight back. I want you to actually process that message a little. As for the rest of that, not that long ago you were claiming that a person like you had no power to change the government. I find it funny that you've turned a 180 already. hmm

Again, that's the purpose of a jury of peers. To exercise the judgement that just because something is a law it is not necessarilly right, nor should people be necessarilly punished for it. And again, you're arguing that people who taught slaves to read should have been penalized and that those who harbored Jews in Nazi Germany deserve death.

Exactly. "Wrong and right" are moral judgements, not legal judgements. Nonsense. If "common sense" was worth anything, you should have had the common sense to realize that law does not define what's wrong or right. But, that's the flaw of "common sense."

Of course we do. That is how opur laws work. Last I checked there are laws against slavery. Our laws work by seperating what's wrong from what's legal. That's the entire point of a jury and appeals process. (well, not ENTIRE point of appeals, but a large part of it) Last I checked, during the time of the institution of slavery, there weren't laws against slavery. That's how "always" works. It's applicable to all periods of time.