random n00b

And cheaper, too. Unfortunately, not many old games have the sort of loyal following that make possible the volume of activity in that game's modding community. I don't think I would have played BG2 as much as I have if it wasn't for the mods. That's a pretty bleak outlook you have. And while the fad seems to be hitting some high profile releases hard, the practice isn't too widespread. I am inclined to think that in time, they will be unable to justify the investment in DRM suites like that, and will instead shift to trying to encourage purchase instead of discouraging piracy.

Jags delivers! Red Alert and Diablo 2 were also great. I like both and 5. Even more ninja awesomeness (this time with pink and cyborg ninjas!)

That's probably the most useless (in a practical sense) thing you could do since you are both supporting the industry and thus encouraging them to continue using that sort of DRM, and at the same time, supporting piracy, albeit indirectly. It's the reason I didn't buy MEPC.

Yeah, I saw it and flagged it for reply, but lost it somehow. :S That's one conclusion, but not necessarily the only one. It says that, according to "calculations", Boltzmann's Brains are infinitely more likely to appear, than our orderly kind of universes. But, in a truly timeless setup, as long as the probability of our own universe appearing isn't strictly zero, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty whether we are what Boltzmann proposed or not. In principle, it's a juxtaposition of infinites... a mathematical indetermination, as evidenced by this: Well, I think that article (and the theories it talks about) need more definition, especially as far as "the universe" is concerned. And also, I'd like to see those "calculations" that predict the universe (our own observable universe) being overrun by floating brains. Come think of it... I probably wouldn't like that. But the point remains, it all depends on the premises they choose to build their model on, apparently. Cosmologists aren't people?

Ah, I didn't know about the reality-spanning implications of that. While interesting as a thought experiment, it's just another cosmogony... everyone has their own I guess. What is exactly predicted to happen? I don't follow. Good point. We can always use more quality sci-fi. Carry on with the pop science! As a side note, I didn't mean for it to come across as criticism... but it never fails to amaze me how journalists always manage to focus on tangential issues and blow them out of proportion, in order to draw attention. They gotta eat too, I suppose.

Nah. Just politics...

Yeah, yeah. What's all this "PC gaming is dying" nonsense, anyway?

I hate when a game is designed to favor a particular playstyle over others significantly and for no reason... on purpose. The example that comes to mind is how absurdly the Tekken games favor juggling as materialized by the insane amount of guaranteed damage they deal. A pretty complex fighting engine which ultimately boils down to learning premade juggles, and how to best deliver the launcher. The opposite example is, of course, Deus Ex. Oh, and movereading (the AI reacting to what you input as opposed to what your in-game avatar does) is total bollocks.

Yeah, so you just want a Democrat president alongside a Democrat-dominated Congress... because you like the way you believe they think better. In other words, you don't care about reasons, and might as well flip a coin and vote based on that, for all the reasons behind your carefully woven discourse. I mean, even impossible logic isn't good enough anymore! The joy of democracy.

What, you mean worse for science than, um, splitting the atom? If you say so... Anyway, it never fails to amaze me when this kind of highly speculative (and for the most part, poorly understood) cutting-edge science is turned into a modern-day bogeyman. Especially in the mainstream media. I mean, it's obvious that being erased from existance by a false vacuum system destabilizing at an unspecified time in the future is a much more credible and serious threat than coronary disease. How can anyone not see this?! Also, I don't understand how this is related to the (misleading) idea that "observing" the system may reset its quantum state clock. Is any of that what you were referring to, or...?

Nonsense. The administrative functions of the govt are affected in no way by a permanent stalemate at Congress. It's the legislative prerogatives (if any) that are blocked. Reforms and other initiatives are stopped. Running the country proper is not. Surely you are familiar with the concept of separation of powers? But yeah, any reason's good to vote Democrat if you apply impossible logic to false premises.

Has Clear Sky been pirated already? I haven't heard anything about that. I'd have it by now, but stores over here are crap and they won't be getting copies until friday... when they were supposed to have it by the 5th.

A full five days before official release? Take that, thepiratebay!

Because, while technically it "works" (as in, it hasn't caused the collapse of the state, yet), it's nowhere near the levels of Sweden, Denmark, Finland... and they are the examples used to showcase the effectiveness of public healthcare. Have you ever heard about the awesome Italian health service? The Spanish one? UK? Right.

From what I know, the demographics in the Nordic countries are different from those of the US, UK, and southern and eastern Europe. Immigration for instance is a non-issue there. Perhaps the relation between that and the success of their model isn't simply casual. I don't think their level of success could be duplicated anywhere else, so they are probably something of an oddity. Which is why they are the one and only example brought up when defending the effectiveness of socialism... And that's why generalizing is so fun.

This is what you are talking about, right? I could live with that, but it's not really any more effective a scheme than any other, against piracy. It would perhaps take more time to reverse-engineer, but once the "scene" became proficient at it, it would become a trivial matter. It's obvious that the industry is fighting a losing war against piracy, and I think it's na

Well, rigorously, he's right - we don't know. It's hard to say how fans of the franchise will react to the news of the next installment being a MMO, especially since it's as of yet unknown if this means that a third, single-player episode will not be made. But, if these boards are anything to make an educated guess from (and they are most definitely not), only a minority will really be pissed about it. And by the way, masses seldom care about anything really...

I didn't know NWN features an official GM service, online events in official, Bioware-maintained PWs, etc. I guess you just know better. Well, now. Then go right ahead and debate them, instead of dropping these holier-than-thou one-liners.

And I was making a comment on the opinion you posted. I know you have a story of throwing fits when somebody does that, so if you can't deal with it, perhaps it'd be best if you kept your opinions to yourself. Please mention one comment I have made where I'm actually making the argument that anyone is threatening my enjoyment of MMOs. Such as? Guild wars? Some obscure Korean MMO? I'm really interested btw. You tell that to the CS and Starcraft crowds. I guess they are doing it wrong, too. There's still plenty of singleplayer games, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Nobody is "forcing" you to anything, unless you fire up a MMO. But in that case, that's the whole point of the game, and complaining about it is like complaining about the lack of submarines in Chessmaster.

Edited by SteveThaiBinh to remove off-topic comment. Wow, an actually sensible post. No wonder it's gone unnoticed and ignored for the most part. How extensive is your experience with MMOs? And I'm of the thinking that not everything needs to conform to some single person's way of seeing things. It's OK if you don't like MMOs, but understand that some people do and are willing to purchase what that perfectly legitimate service offers. Which means it's just not going to go away. No, they are not going to give you stuff for free. They need to make a living too, you know.

Nice find. Thoughts: Graphics don't look so hot, especially character models. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, I do realize that's the 360 version. Dialogue seems uninspired at best. The whole infant business seems interesting... for the first playthrough. It has the potential to be even worse than Chateau Irenicus or the Temple of Trials... G.O.A.T.(se?)? Seriously, what? Whoever's playing that sure knows how to pick their character names. Thinking is already starting to make my head hurt.

Depending on the state of your health, you may or may not be able to stomach reading through this whole thread, where many mods are discussed (unfortunately, the discussion isn't restricted to that). As everyone is recommending TuTu, I'm going to go on a limb and recommend BGTrilogy. It adds some stuff you may not agree with, but I liked how it handled the transition. BG1NPC - It's debatable whether fanfic-quality writing is better than NO writing whatsoever, but it has Jags' seal of approval... SCS/SCSII - I don't know which version you would need if you go TuTu/BGT. AWESOME mod. BG2 Fix Pack/Tweak Pack - Take a look at the changes list and decide for yourself which (if any) components you want. Those are the things I wouldn't play BG/BG2 without.

I don't know if you're just a cheap ass, or simply naive. Either way, giving away stuff for free is stupid, so don't expect people to survive in the business to do it.

Thought we were done? Think again! Sure is. So what? It makes sense that the more in-depth you go into any subject, the less people will be able to discuss that subject from an informed position. And again, being informed is the fundamental requirement to form an opinion. What does this have to do with what I said? Did you even read the part where I explained why I'm not using reviews and other means of outsourcing opinions as a valid means of gauging the worth of an idea? No, it doesn't. "Good" can mean virtually anything you want, depending on an infinity of factors and circumstances. A Big Mac can be "good". But it's not especially healthy, so in that respect is not "good". <insert any number of similar examples here> "Superiority", however, is a meaningless concept when applied to a single element, evaluated in isolation from those which, due to their attributes, would make it superior or not, over a set of well-defined parameters. It is an inherently comparative concept. It doesn't matter who's making the assessment. It's still based on personal preferences rather than an objective consideration of that game's elements. Your accusing me of an ad hominem argument on that paragraph is way off the mark. I didn't ask for a connection, I asked for an explanation to a statement you made that I think holds no water. The "connection" doesn't go beyond the game being "Sim"-something, something I already noted. Look up the difference between "explanation" and "connection", in one of those online dictionaries you are so fond of, if in doubt. (how was that for sarcasm?)

Ooh, quote war! I can play that game, too. Yeah, but unfortunately, that's how (constructive) conversations work. If I ask about the weather and you answer that my tie is lovely, we might as well do something else. Aside, the fact that you are still struggling over semantics, with online dictionary definitions as the underlying foundations for your arguments proves what I said before - you are constantly sidestepping the point. That you believe your arguments or the way you convey them is appropriate does not necessarily make them so. Keep your apples and oranges arguments coming if you want... but they don't really add anything relevant to the discussion. Wow, "incorrect"? Is that your opinion, or is it fact? Nice job at taking a shot at your own discourse. That's what you say. However, being so categorical when expressing whimsical, uninformed, and otherwise irrational (as you have been defending your right to so far) thoughts, will lead to confusion. Because, you see, people will expect you to explain why this is so, according to you. "I think X sucks", is unequivocally an expression of personal belief, and will not necessarily be put under scrutiny in the same way. Really. How many times do I have to explain this? It's beginning to leave a bad taste. Consensus has nothing to do with it. Consensus is merely a number of people agreeing on something. People agreeing on something do not define reality. I thought my Beethoven example would have made it clear, but obviously I was mistaken. Rembrandt had a better technique that many artists before or after him. He was self-taught as well. Those two things make him a genius, regardless of whether you feel moved by his paintings or not. Simply because most people (and most artists as well) cannot perform comparably. Therefore, the statement "Rembrandt is a crap artist" is objectively wrong, simply because there aren't many able to outperform him. It's a matter of comparison. You are wrong. The formal study of music isn't a subjective discipline, and music itself has a deep connection to mathematics. Therefore, it can be proven objectively (to the extent this has any meaning), that his compositions were of superior quality, as well as his superior mastery of music as a system, overall. Again, simply by comparison. That "grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" is fairly important, because it's the difference between valid, perhaps even very certain assumption and fact. Opinion are never factual, and thus there can be no way to "prove" them correct. But it also follows from that, then, that they can neither be "proven" wrong, because if they could, then would be misconceptions, delusions, lies or similar rather than opinions. This is wrong on two accounts. First, because you are making the assumption that some expressed opinion is not openly, clearly nonsensical or contradictive of observable truth ("Earth is flat"). So, if a statement is made in that vein, it is not even an opinion, it's nonsense and the defense "it's my opinion!" doesn't apply. That's what I said in my first post in this discussion, in case you have lost track. Second, because you are abusing the uncertainty aspect of the definition. Being "uncertain" doesn't equal not being subject to scrutiny or discussion. It doesn't mean that a feeble or unsupported argument is valid simply because empirical evidence doesn't exist to disprove it. Keep exploiting the uncertainty idea, and you get to the extreme of epistemological skepticism, where nobody can be sure of anything and everything is potentially a figment of your imagination. Nice loophole, and a potentially unassailable stance in a debate indeed. But rather silly nonetheless. This contradicts what I said... how? You used Galileo to show how prevalent opinions aren't necessarily correct, a counter to an argument that nobody had made. I remarked that the example works against what you said, because it proves that some opinions are objectively wrong. And now you are saying that some people still don't accept (or didn't until recently) things for which an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence exists, to illustrate... what exactly? What point are you trying to make by using the Church's cognitive immobilism? I think you are confused. Too much quote/reply. The Vatican promoting patently wrong beliefs as true only proves they are out of sync with the times. If anyone is more informed and has a superior understanding and experience in any subject than you, they will probably be better suited to provide more accurate assessments than you are. By more accurate, I mean closer to the truth (as far as can reasonably be desired). That does not mean they will always be right and you will always be wrong. But in those instances, for those people, the credibility of their opinions rests on their baggage. The credibility of yours rests on the strength of the reasons you can come up with that contradict their opinions.