dan107

Why is Obsidian letting us go through this crap?? I realize that it's probably out of their hands right now, but is it really so difficult for a dev to go into a Strarbucks, register a new account and just let us know what's going on here?

Vaporware!

This isn't WOW. I'm sure that if there are factions, your allegiance will be determined through a few very specific, heavily plot-driven events. In a good RPG you don't have any grinding, period.

Man, you really must play more RPG's I played every Bio/Obisidian RPG since BG1, and I really don't understand why so many people didn't like the NWN2 OC. I thought it was a great game, easily on par with KOTOR and BG2. Yeah, it was a little rough around the edges at times, and I wish the NPCs were a little more developed in the second half of the game, but it was still a very enjoyable experience for me. And I've never played a game where I liked as many of the NPC as NWN2.

I thought that the NWN2 cast of characters was overall better than just about any other RPG I've ever played. Only thing that it was missing really was a good romantic interest. Other than that, it was phenomenal. Just because a character fits a certain archetype doesn't not mean that he's not an interesting character, that's going to come down the the dialogues and the story. Different is not the same as good.

While you have some points regarding the definition of torture, I still don't see any point in arguing the meaning of the word. I will say that I believe waterboarding to be an appropriate means of extracting information from enemy combatants, yes. Don't forget that this is a war after all, and if the interests of our own security can be advanced by inflicting psychological damage on the people we're at war with, there is no doubt in my mind that it must be done. I would even go a lot further than waterboarding, if that is indeed necessary and effective. What regular interrogation techniques exactly? Again, what if the person simply refuses to talk to you? How do you break them? Let's say you are in a situation where you have reason to believe that American lives can be saved by extracting whatever information that person has in a prompt fashion. What do you do in that situation? Certainly that's not something that I would look forward to, but if you get captured by the people who you're fighting against and trying to kill in a war, it's naive to expect otherwise. Since I'm unlikely to find myself at odds with the CIA though, let me put it this way -- if I were to go over to Iraq, and was captured by the militants, I would hope and pray to everything I've ever believed in that waterboarding would be the worst that they would to me. That was more of a counterarguement to the nonsensical claims that Guantamo Bay is as bad as a concentration camp, and that there is no difference between the CIA and the terrorists. There are degrees of brutality, and when compared to similar organizations the CIA is as humane as any intelligence agency has ever been.

What sort of evidence is necessary? All I'm saying here is that: 1) The CIA is one of the most humane covert intelligence agencies that ever existed, when compared to other similar outfits. And: 2) By and large, the tactics used by the CIA against their prisoners are much more humane than those used by the fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan against theirs. Do you really need me to provide detailied links to methods of torture that are a lot more brutal that waterboarding? Which one of those points do you disagree with exactly? I'm still confused as to where the rest of you are coming from. From what I can gather, your entire collective point seems to be that waterboarding is not "nice". Ok, no arguement there. But it gets far far worse than waterboarding, and the CIA aren't doing it just for kicks. They're doing what they're doing to try and prevent American casualties. I ask again, what specifically should they do if the subject refuses to cooperate, and they are not allowed to apply any kind of mental or physical pressure? Seriously, let's hear some ideas.

Thank god they have someone as smart as you to tell them how to do their job. Well if you've never met them, then they don't exist. I'm sure you're drawing on a background of extensive personal experience in the intelligence community here, right? "Talk it out of them", huh? Just curious, how exactly do you envision that? If you ask them a question, and they say no, what then? Apologize for being rude and ask them again more nicely?

Would you care to come up with any facts, or at least a coherent arguement to substantiate your claims, or to dispute any point that I made? Putting on superior airs and insulting my intelligence does nothing to bolster your position, nor does it weaken mine. And your point? We are discussing opinions here, not facts. Please, keep up. Generally when one provides an opinion in a debate, it is reasonable to expect that opinion to be backed up by facts, or at least to form a coherent arguement, no? And why do you insist on inserting snide remarks implying that I'm dumber than you? I'm glad if that gives you some measure of satisfaction, but saying so doesn't make it so.

They have, that you still find it distasteful doesn't mean that they haven't progressed. I'm personally against any form of torture as well. There is nothing there that "borders" on torture, all of it is torture if it is meant to help in extracting information. Unless you want to argue that some of that doesn't bring physical or mental pain. Yes, there absolutely are things that border on torture. If you were to adopt a blanket definition of torture as any action that elicits compliance through physical or mental pain, then your boss threatening to fire you if you don't do what he tells you would fall under that definition. The fact of the matter is that there is a wide, wide spectrum of things that you can do to a person to compel them to act a certain way, and some are more brutal than others. Where exactly you draw the line and call it torture is subjective opinion, and is thus pointless to argue about. What can be argued is about is the fact that certain groups and organizations will do things that are more brutal than others. And it is an absolute fact that the CIA uses some of the most humane interrogation techniques in history. Seriously how can you compare waterboarding, which does no permanent damage to things like chopping off people's hands, gouging out their eyes, or simply shooting them in the back of the head? I mean what is it exactly that you people would like the CIA to do? If you say that they are not allowed to apply ANY mental or physical pressure, how are they to carry out their job of obtaining information from the sort of people that they have to deal with? Let's hear some alternatives, not just criticisms. There are rarely "good" or "bad" guys in any war, but in there are more brutal and less brutal ways of doing things. Think about it this way -- if you were to be held prisoner by either the CIA or the terrorists which would you choose? Guantanomo Bay, with the prospect of getting waterboarded, or some shack in the middle of Iraq, with the prospect of getting your head cut off?

Would you care to come up with any facts, or at least a coherent arguement to substantiate your claims, or to dispute any point that I made? Putting on superior airs and insulting my intelligence does nothing to bolster your position, nor does it weaken mine. Getting back to the game, it's difficult for me to imagine how you can make a game with an intelligence agent as a protagonist, and claim to offer a wide latitude of moral choices without including the option for some brutal torture (real torture, not CIA kiddie torture) to get the job done. It doesn't have to be shown really explicitly, but it's certainly not something that should be glossed over or sugarcoated. I think that something similar to the ME approach (where whenever you executed someone, you would hold a gun to their head, and then the camera would pan to show your character pulling the trigger, without explicitly showing the victim's head getting blown off) is a pretty good balance.

Jesus ****ing christ... Get real What a brilliant and factually substantiated arguement. How can I contend with that?

Read up on your history my friend. Comparing the CIA to the SS or the Gestapo is utterly absurd. Guantamo is a PoW camp, and one of the most humane PoW camps that ever existed. The foreign enemies of the United States that are held there are treated much more humanely by the CIA than a lot of countries treat their own citizens in their prisons. And don't forget why they're doing this in the first place. Let's say you're an intelligence officer tasked with defending the national interests of your country. You're interrogating a guy that was caught somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan. While his guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, odds are overwhelming that he is one of the people that openely hates your country and has vowed to cause you as much death and destruction as possible. You also have reason to believe that he is in possession of information that will help you track down declared enemies of your country, and save your compatriots' lives. Are you really going to claim that turning him upside down and splashing a little water in his face to extract that information is not a reasonable course of action? Especially knowing that were the shoe on the other foot, people like him would have no hesitation about cutting your head off, and video taping it for the world to see?

I wouldn't call waterboarding real torture. Not compared to splashing acid into someone's eyes, or killing their family members in front of them, as was and is done in many other places in the world. People who love to criticize the CIA for brutality don't seem to realize that covert intelligence isn't all sunshine and lollipops, and that the CIA uses just about the most humane interrogations techniques of any comparable agency that ever existed. I mean what would you like them to do? Politely ask suspected spies and terrorists to tell what they know, and if they refuse, apologize for the inconvenience?

It didn't mention it specifically, but it's inconceivable to me that they would do a conversation system like that without full VO. I think that they're going for ME style cinematics, and you can't do something like that with just subtitles.