Bartimaeus

I think another important realization is that literally everyone is biased in some manner of speaking, whether it be wholly and knowingly so, or more subtly and "acceptably" so. Literally everyone has different values for literally everything - whether those values in things be essentially nonexistent or the "single issue" for a person. I, for example, highly value U.S. hegemony - but I also value liberty, and making sure that the U.S. deserves its hegemony status. This is a balancing act for myself, but in general, I tend to support foreign U.S. actions - as it seems most actions are to do with either maintaining or expanding our power - except when it seems the problems in doing so, whether moral or actual, are too great and/or too many to ignore. Contrarily, however, I tend to demonize domestic affairs, as it seems regular citizens are perpetually having to fight to make sure our country doesn't slide backwards socially. My idea of what "backwards" and "forwards" are are equally biased - for example, I think a whole lot of people value certain "key" issues that I think are almost entirely irrelevant and couldn't really care either way about. I think that we are currently treading a very fine line with our "mandate of heaven"...but as there seems to be no better replacement that would not be just as corrupt and backwards as we are if given the chance...best to try and change things domestically, even if it does seem ever hopeless. Point is, I'm biased, you're biased, everyone's biased. Bruce's comment suggesting that neither CNN nor BBC are biased made me actually laugh out loud - of course they are, they're Western news corporations. Western corporations, for goodness' sakes. How could they not be biased? It's literally, (I think anyways), an impossibility. Their continued good future relies on the West dominating economically and socially...militarily, too, I suppose. So naturally, they value certain things that other non-Western sources might not - hence why RT, for example, is hardly ever likely to agree with Western sources on any West vs. Russia issues - because both sides are biased and naturally, as naturally as humans think and breathe, value things differently as a result of what they are. They might represent the "two sides" - as if there's a finite two sides to anything - of an issue to some degree, but that hardly makes them unbiased. Neither one is right or wrong, even if what they tell are complete physical lies - just serving different agendas, as everyone does. Whatever narrative someone presents - even if it is the very lack of one - shows a bias. P.S. I hate it when I make long-winded posts like this that actually don't say anything at all. Oh well. If for nothing else besides a record of what I was thinking of at this time...

Hm. Everyone seems to assume that the Republican Party is bought and paid for - yet there seem to be many that don't realize the same about the Democrats. I would warrant that that makes them the superior propagandist of the two...but maybe that's just me.

Suddenly, I feel like I'm on a Rareware forums discussing Stop 'n Swop theories...

Terranigma - an old SNES JARPG. I don't normally play JRPGs due to certain elements making me not a fan of the genre - and this one is no exception - but as I had played it for a bit many years back, I found myself suggesting it to a friend who was enjoying the Ys series, and then later found myself playing it alongside him. Moderately enjoyable. Eufloria - a lite real time strategy game based on the premise of creating a sort of flower empire in certain (somewhat random, within certain parameters) scenarios laid out for you. You conquer "worlds" with "seeds", plant them en masse in the worlds to produce more seeds to conquer other worlds. I bought it many years ago on Steam, tried it then and thought it was okay but didn't make it through. Restarted a few days ago and found that I liked it more now than I did then, and beat the main game, and am now trying the harder difficulty.

Pros: Sadly irrelevant in my case. Awesome sprites/paperdolls by Erephine and co. Seriously. Various other things. Cons: I am a so called "purist" and don't like the addition of new content that I haven't personally approved. The new party members (that I basically consider to be fanfic grafted onto the games) bother me enough that although I could remove them easily enough with DLTCEP or Near Infinity, I feel as though the developers had their priorities so incredibly mixed up for these "enhanced editions" that I am loath to support them. I think I would actually be more inclined to recommend them if they had a $5 "remove all this extra stuff" DLC. I probably still wouldn't, of course, because that'd be utter nonsense, but nevertheless. That's in addition to not all mods working correctly...which means if I'm actually playing, I'm playing non-EE, regardless of all other factors. Had at least the NPCs and their relevant quests been split off into like a $5 DLC, it would be oh so much easier for me to be happy with the games. I probably would've even bought it, (though I would've had it disabled). My idea of "enhancing" a game does not involve adding a bunch of half-baked junk that sticks out like a sore thumb that I (with no prior history of expertise to suggest that it would actually fit in the game) thought up myself in an afternoon. Away with you, beggar!

Yeah, the hardcore aim was ridiculous. Sitting at the very edge of my Dragunov's scope, barely able to make out enemies, crouched down and in partial cover, meanwhile they are hitting me with almost perfect accuracy with assault rifles. I'm glad I've personally modded Stalker enough to have an idea of how to fix (at least some of) the concerns you guys mentioned in otherwise good mods...though I'll have to admit to not having tried the Misery mod. SHoC is more my default Stalker "experience" / base game than CoP.

...or convince people to buy both equally, which seems to be the main strategy of most entertainment industries in general.

... n.... no? Where did I ever say that? I... I said the exact opposite of that. Is Obama rounding citizens up and having them executed in concentration camps? Is he locking foreign tourists up because he suspects them of being gay? Is he refusing food, water, and basic quality of life materials to his citizens? Is he personally overseeing every horrendous crime in America? You're responding to Calax as if their post had been directed towards you.

Do you believe this in general for first person shooters, or specifically Titanfall? If the latter, I'm genuinely curious as to why. If the former...

Get some sleep. You'll still be doomed for eternity when you wake up tomorrow. I know and i love it. Good thing i have no red bull or any similar drink around. I might not sleep until i die (so 4-5 days of playing). Alternatively, you could contract this disease and play for a full few months until your brain shuts down and you expire. Or you could sleep.

If we had the individual power to do so, I'm sure a good portion of us would...or at least we would legitimately consider it. I would need to know all the things that the people in charge know - possibly more - before committing to such a decision...hence why you don't often see me condemning or supporting anyone at all, especially on political issues such as this where there is no right solution, anyways - only a "best" solution for furthering whatever your agenda is, (whether you're a Russian "fascist" or an American "patriot", hah). No matter how bad a decision seem at face value, I know I never fully understand the agenda of the person making said decision - the only thing I really know is how it might affect me or things I consider important. Therefore, I might actively oppose a decision and the people making it, knowing that it could very well be the incorrect thing to do when I don't feel like I know enough (and when do you ever REALLY know enough?) but nevertheless try to do the best I can for what I think is most important, but I wouldn't fully believe in it...and I probably wouldn't be trying to construct arguments as to what's most "correct" for these issues to other people, because it's all subjective, depending on what you actually want to happen. Hence why there's no point in arguing with some people, (both on these forums and elsewhere), as what they want to happen is already set in stone, and the arguments are all made up to support a foregone conclusion, instead of a conclusion still constantly being re-evaluated and redetermined. Putin could very well be doing the best thing for furthering his agenda. Hard to say, really - he probably thinks he is, but there are always unintended effects. The libertarian for all in me says that all governments are in the wrong in some way or another regarding most issues, and this one is only an exception in just how much everyone seems to be in the wrong (from, again, a libertarian point of view). The U.S./Western imperialist/hegemonist in me, however, says that there are much more important things to consider...and that I should always be opposed to any action that curtails our authority/power, as those two things should be valued above everything else...including not being guilty of hypocrisy. I don't necessarily follow either points of view. For others here, though...there are only a scant few people (comparatively) that are in charge that directly have the power to actually make change. For the rest of us without that direct influence, we can vote for people we hope will make changes that we want...but given that they're never actually obligated to, well... So failing that, we can complain and condemn. (P.S. Gosh, I introspect too much - this got really rambly. My apologies.)

Yes...and *so* many people were defending the NSA/USA (and other countries with similar institutions) when the subject being discussed was about them. Pah. As if these forums needed any more whataboutism...

Whoa, whoa...what? I'm pretty sure *anyone* can have problems of the sort that you just mentioned, regardless of gender...myself as an example who is also a guy who has felt pretty directionless and not very confident since the day I was born... (e: your post after this sounds less extreme than what I quoted, where you just said there are generally NO cases where a guy could have problems of this sort...so I'll forgive you, Bruce, so long as you don't go to such extremes again, . That's not to say I necessarily agree, but again, as always, I try to maintain a position of neutrality, because really, I just can't say I know one way or another...so I don't disagree either. ) @Valsuelm: no problem.

So you think banning a word is a good intentioned thing? Also, really? You've never heard of a female touted as a good leader? If we're talking about a girl, and not a woman than yea.. I could see that. It is a very rare kid indeed that is a good leader. But if we're talking about a woman, that's another story. Uh, you're joking, right? I mentioned 1984...I said "doubleplusungood"...I said I didn't particularly care for the execution... No, I have not. But to be fair to adult women, I don't often hear "bossy", either - instead, I think it's almost always "controlling" or "control"-something...which is also applied a lot to adult men. (e: a comma) (e: P.S. I didn't respond to the rest of what you said, because I more or less agree. More or less. The only thing I see myself disagreeing with is the "100% hogwash" bit - I still think there are definitely some problems, (whether large or small)...in regards to both males AND females. I'm not entirely certain that this particular one is - but nor am I convinced of the opposite, and therefore I feel like it's well-intentioned SO LONG as it does not elevate one gender over the other, which I don't feel like it's doing. And as long as it isn't for retarded stuff like actually really banning words, which is why I said what I said in my previous post. )

Okay/good sentiment, (I mean, I haven't really seen it happen myself - I've often seen "bossy" applied to both boys and girls...though I'll admit that I can't think of any times I've heard of a girl being called a "good leader", so that probably says something in itself - and I see absolutely no reason not to support either gender as long as it does not elevate one above the other, which I don't think the basic sentiment of this does), doubleplusungood (it seems to me) execution. Let's not 1984 ourselves anymore than need be, okay? Support campaigns that have both good intentions AND good means for those intentions becoming reality. From what I can see of this page, it seems to be at least sort of on target, but I think they should've focused on something - anything, really - besides "ban bossy". P.S: People are getting really bent out of shape over this.

Bride of the Atom - Thrice Majestic Eye - Herd Under Social Hypnosis

If you're referring to storyline or dialogue choices, then I don't really consider that to be a defining or essential feature of the genre. All RPGs have to have some kind of numerical progression in place, but not all of them have to have storyline and dialogue choices. A lot of the old RPGs didn't even have much of a storyline or dialogue at all, let alone choices to make. Choices are just something that has been taken from the adventure genre later on and added to RPGs in order to give them more flavour and complexity. It doesn't matter how you interpret such choices, they are by no means a defining feature of an RPG on their own. I can't help but notice that a game within the genre we're supposedly discussing would be called a Roleplaying Game, not an Increase Your Meaningless Stats Game.

This is actually the reason I can't play through Fallout 3/New Vegas. I absolutely detest the leveling/stat system. I think they're "okay" for non-combat skill checks - like determining if you can defuse the bomb in Megaton - but for active gameplay, like (and especially) combat? I can't stand a weapon artificially being absolute garbage - both in terms of accuracy and damage - at the beginning of a game, and then becoming absolutely awesome in both by the time you've maxed out your "skill" in whatever relevant stat dump. I would love to play with a more Stalker-esque system, where a weapon is what a weapon bloody well is, exactly the same for everyone - for better or for worse - and you can't do squat to change it, except aim better.

Touche. I just got done manually modding back in the cut mutants for the ZRP mod in Shadow of Chernobyl myself. I dream for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2...

I actually prefer Half-Life 1 to Half-Life 2...overall. I liked some things more about Half-Life 2, but all the NPC so transparently gushing over you - particularly Alyx - drove me crazy. Half-Life 1, on the other hand, was very much a solitary adventure.

U.S. impeachment also differs from European impeachment. Isn't impeachment the actual act of conviction in the U.K., for example, whereas U.S. impeachment is merely the go ahead for the trial to take place?

I hoped they've already changed the name. Er...why? Haha.

Robobama would have eliminated republicans, as he would no longer be restrained by Human emotions and morals, instead having nothing but a heart of cold and lifeless steel. Silicon is superior to worthless human flaws, Who cares if futurist morality goes against your human laws? Morality carries no weight here, no-one ever heard of it in cyberspace, Cyborgs are my companions now and I play the human race.

I'm not sure if I necessarily agree or not, but these oh-so-contemporary (whether contemporary for now or ten-fifteen years ago, ) posts found in this particular topic for this question are kinda making me think the same thing...but then again, as a normal person, I don't see any other way to really answer the question, regardless of what your reasons for your [non-]choices are. So I guess let us be us...and don't let pseudo-intellectualism get in the way, particularly if it's built off of debasing others. Don't mind me, just internally monologuing here...

You have a problem, but not having a girlfriend isn't it (nor necessarily one in general), I don't think... (e: in retrospect, that probably should've been a to seem a lot less passive-aggressive...)