Rostere

Haha. WTF!?

I'm replaying Fallout Tactics right now and the turn based-combat system is very good, just as I remember it. The problem with Fallout is that you control only one character, which in many cases eliminates the thinking. Combat in Fallout is essentially about moving one guy and then waiting for hours for it to become your turn again. You'll always have your plan ready and there are extremely few situations in the game where you'll have to use the time you opponent moves to adapt a new plan. In games which are balanced for more characters such as F:T, you need more time to think because of the more complex situations. In Fallout, unless you are playing for the first time, you'll always have your plan ready. You could compare the combat in the old Fallout games with playing chess with only two pieces. Okay so some of you might argue that there were allies in Fallout, but you couldn't control them directly and either they were either always suicidally running to charge the enemy or shooting you in the back at the first sight of them. Basically, on a tactical level they were only nuisances providing no real tactical depth. Generally I prefer turn-based combat to real-time, however Fallout is the worst example of how to make turn-based combat a chore.

Silent Hunter 3. Get the german version, just for awesomeness. Best. Submarine. Game. Ever.

Rule number one: there's always someone on the internets who knows WH40K fluff better than you do.

You sure you're not referring to abhumans?

Should you interpret that sentence as though if it's insinuating that nerds and humans are different species? I've heard they can generate progeny, even though I have not seen it for myself

LOL Thanks man, that post made my day.

wut

Epic!

So, I just woke up and all I'm wondering is: what the **** did I do on New Year's Eve?

No, but it's a step forward to begin regarded as a classic compared to being regarded as a piece of ****. I remember Arcanum and VtM:B also had very lukewarm reviews.

Well that was predictable, I guess ROK/US called their bluff. Either that or there's some back room deal that gave Kim what he wanted (Japanese showgirls?). Or a phone call from Beijing. Ew. Wait, sorry, just following the train of logic from the showgirls. Novel thought for a sex phone line though: senior Chinese state officials. LOL

So, AP, while being bashed initially, is now starting to be regarded more and more as a classic. D

Taxation of drugs, the solution to the economic crisis of (most of) the Western world. How come no one thought of this before?

Man, there are so many things wrong with this game, it deserves all the hate it got. There was so much potential for it and many interesting features from research, to general base management to their pseud-real-time combat system, but the lack of environments, actual tactics and most of all, variety killed it. I have to disagree here. Ever since I played Altar's Original War I have liked all their games for no particular reason other than bias (kind of like how some Morrowind fans defend Oblivion, I guess). I understand if others might think it's bland though.

Oh come on...

Well. From what we read around here, he was a quite "normal" guy until he, after visiting Britain, became "increasingly radical and angry". Maybe he was known there for these tendencies, but I think very few, if any, in Sweden knew of the extent of his radicalization. Also, I very much doubt that he had training with explosives, from what I've read... I could have made a better bomb myself, from the descriptions of those. "After visiting Britain" Yes, it's very funny. Like Walsingham wrote, apparently he had suddenly become interested in religion, and had talked a lot to other religious students. And then when he came back, he became more introverted and people thought it was "just a phase" he was going through. I think the likelihood that he was backed by a larger organization is smaller if he makes crappy bombs though. If what I've read about those bombs is true, I could have made way better ones myself. When I say they were crap, I don't primarily refer to the misfire, but rather their whole construction.

I agree to this... Well. From what we read around here, he was a quite "normal" guy until he, after visiting Britain, became "increasingly radical and angry". Maybe he was known there for these tendencies, but I think very few, if any, in Sweden knew of the extent of his radicalization. Also, I very much doubt that he had training with explosives, from what I've read... I could have made a better bomb myself, from the descriptions of those.

The only cartons I have left are from The Curse of Monkey Island and Arcanum... All the others went into the garbage can I have a ****load of newer plastic boxes, though. About 200 games all in all...

In intent perhaps... But they're definitely right in that he's the "lone nutter" stereotype. I very seriously doubt there's some kind of organization backing him up though.

Oh my god. Craptastic.

Soviet Union had one too. Everyone seems to have a Peace Prize nowadays. Funny that the Reagan peace prize was awarded to Thatcher, Colin Powell, and George H.W. Bush... Also, I saw that Brezhnev had been awarded the Lenin peace prize

Well, as I see it, it's a question of what you'd rather have - and what eventually leads to a stable democracy...

Agreed. The history of modern Iran is a pretty sad story. A large country, rich in history and natural resources, sitting on important trade routes, and home to some of the most beautiful women in the world, misruled alternately by dickering colonial powers, foreign-backed autocrats, domestic theocrats, and (now) an effective oligarchy composed of the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard. The fall of this particular regime wouldn't be much regretted, but the chaos and difficulty that will likely follow isn't to be eagerly anticipated. Honestly, I don't think Iran is that different from the USSR in those aspects. I wonder what people might have said in 1988 though: "The history of Russia is a pretty sad story. A large country, rich in history and natural resources, sitting on important trade routes, and home to some of the most beautiful women in the world, misruled alternately by autocrats and their cronies backed by the church exploiting the population to absurd lengths, and then a communist regime more than eager to murder their own or send them to labor camps, and (now) an effective oligarchy composed of the leaders of the CPSU. The fall of this particular regime wouldn't be much regretted, but the chaos and difficulty that will likely follow isn't to be eagerly anticipated." Also, I think Iran would be more likely to use nuclear arms than the USSR ever was.

WTF? Seriously, what the **** are you talking about? Please tell me of the "many conflicting groups" in the sixties formed BECAUSE OF DEMOCRACY, and then from a global perspective, and in which way stifling someone's voice forcibly would have caused less tension. Also: I don't know, but at least where I live it's a criminal offence to promote a crime of violence against another person. But, judging from how many people over there saying Julian Assange should be shot, maybe those things are not illegal everywhere. Yes, I would also like to know what is civilized with threatening with murder or violence, because those things should be and are illegal in most countries. Technically, everyone of us has basically been under "stronger" leadership throughout our entire histories. The entire world has gone successively from autocracy to democracy, from inequality to equality (with regards to race, gender, et.c.), from arbitrary violence to a judicial system, from corruption and nepotism to transparency, and so on. Of course this progression is not linear, and not even (necessarily) piecewise progressing, but it is very clear in which way human civilization is heading. I find it amusing how you say that China is "a pretty stable and successful society", which is simply wrong. How many people have you talked with describing life in China? What is your opinion on the Chinese countryside as part of this "successful society"? For example, Cuba is a similar society only far more "stable" and "successful". But I don't think anyone else on this forum (with the possible exception of LoF) would say Cuba is a stable and successful society. How can you say "the Chinese" "are better" when under "strong leadership"? The statement seems absurd and detached from reality just looking at the way you put it. I get the impression you've played Civilization, but never studied history in school, or at least not any history worth talking about. Which comparison did you make when you wrote that? And what separates the Chinese from the rest of the world in this aspect? Genetics? A culture not compatible with democracy? I have spoken with a lot of Chinese exchange students where I live, and I can ensure you they are just as incompatible with democracy as you or I. Of course no one form of government is going to be the best for everybody in the world at any given moment. But as we become more and more educated, democracy will become more and more prevalent.