random n00b

Hahaha, I'm the definition of gimped. Oh well. Chaotic Neutral Human Sorcerer (4th Level) Ability Scores: Strength- 13 Dexterity- 12 Constitution- 16 Intelligence- 18 Wisdom- 16 Charisma- 11 Alignment: Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXX (7) Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14) Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19) Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15) True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22) Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (27) Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13) Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20) Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25) Law & Chaos: Law ----- XXX (3) Neutral - XXXXXXXXXX (10) Chaos --- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15) Good & Evil: Good ---- XXXX (4) Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12) Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10) Race: Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14) Dwarf ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10) Elf ------ XXXX (4) Gnome ---- XXXXXX (6) Halfling - XXXXXX (6) Half-Elf - XXXXXXXXX (9) Half-Orc - XXXXXX (6) Class: Barbarian - (-6) Bard ------ (-4) Cleric ---- (-4) Druid ----- (-2) Fighter --- (-2) Monk ------ (-15) Paladin --- (-23) Ranger ---- XXXX (4) Rogue ----- (0) Sorcerer -- XXXXXXXXXX (10) Wizard ---- (0)

And by "same", I mean "completely different".

Um. You are both arguing the same thing actually...

No, but you can own an anti-materiel rifle for hunting vermin! Those pesky lizards!

That the outline for Paul Verhoeven's latest flick? Sounds neat!

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. In good conscience (HA!), Mugabe couldn't allow an election to proceed with shootouts happening on the streets that are related to groups attempting to alter said election results. Kids aren't responsible for their actions because their judgement isn't fully formed - the same reason they aren't allowed to vote. Unless a qualified professional certifies otherwise, as soon as one is an adult, they assume full and exclusive responsibility for their actions, as it should be. Should everyone be tested to see if they are actually fit to exercise their rights as adults, instead of assuming they are by default? I'm not going to touch this one...

But is it? If the citizenry were actually able to defend themselves, martial law or similar extraordinary emergency measures could be adopted, essentially producing the same situation, or worse. Seems to me like he's got everything nailed down pretty neatly unfortunately...

That is beyond awesome. I wonder what level of protection it affords, compared to the tried-and-true tinfoil hat. I'm saving that one...

Yeah, I was actually agreeing with you. So, since adhering to the intent of the Amendment, rather than the letter, would be insane (I don't think they had RPG-7s and SAWs in mind when it was passed), what's the point anymore? It's obvious that the right to possess firearms as a sort of "deterrent" against a would-be oppressive government is obsolete. I guess that, nowadays, the "point" is simply that guns in general have become just another consumer good, and cracking down on that would be Bad for Business...

"Gee, I wish we had one of 'em doomsday machines!" - Gen. "Buck" Turgidson.

Hahaha, most people here seem to have fired many more different guns than me - and I was in a SO outfit receiving training for some time. :shakehead: Anyhow: CETME G36E MG3 C90 L65 (2-man, short 60 mm mortar) Most of those fired during the SO course. If I had completed training, I'd have been trained for use (and maintenance) of the USP and MP5SD5 as well.

wait what

Um, isn't this a case of individual stupidity? I haven't seen any official action (not even the "ombudsman's" reaction) in this case... and I doubt there'll be any. Why did this get on BBC, again?

WOOHOO!! Moar goalz would have been nice, though.

"Assault weapons" are not assault rifles, as far as this discussion is concerned. They are just some semi auto weapons that "look militaristic". And anyway, assault rifles alone aren't very good at making a credible threat out of a civilian militia at any rate - "destructive devices", which are already heavily restricted (or banned altogether in some places) would be. Is there anyone pushing for the freedom to own a M72 LAW or .50 M2 Browning? Heh...

Didn't we have this conversation already...? Where? In these boards? Certainly not in this particular FO3 thread. And yeah, some of the stuff they have announced is patently retarded. But I'm hoping the game will have some other redeeming qualities. It's also entirely possible that I'm in for a big disappointment, but that's beside the point. You know, thinking about it, I'm finding it pretty paradoxical that some pan the game based on admittedly incomplete experience, and not six pages ago, holism was brought up as an explanation of the greatness of other Fallout installments. Anyway, yes. I too wish they would release more of the juicy stuff (PC-NPC interactions specifically), the absence of which worries me more than portable nuke launchers or chain-reaction cars. There's very little info about, not enough to make an informed decision. But some folks have already made up their minds. Oh well. Yes, well. I didn't mean *you* specifically. I'm not sure of the value of an analogy with ME, since it's not the game itself that you are against, but a part of the software package. I haven't played ME either, and interestingly, the only thing I can think of that would stop me from trying FO3 (save for a discouraging demo version, ain't gonna happen) is a copy-protection scheme similar to the one of ME...

That's why I answered to your post with "explain", and the "jumping to conclusions" thing was in response to Xard's general overview of the game as a whole. So yeah, my comment was pretty justified. Don't be so quick to point and laugh next time, RP. Again, explain yourself? The general rule I always use, not only with games, is not to make general ASSessments of stuff I know very little about. Interestingly, it's not the particular features that have been revealed that are discussed the most, as you no doubt can see, but how the game is going to be "Oblivion with guns", and how it fails to "capture the essence of Fallout", and some other equally vague comments. All that energy wasted in hating something you don't know, and in the end, you won't be able to stop yourself from purchasing it and playing it and all... it doesn't really bother me, but as I said, I find it funny. And I'm not even going to touch the child porn thing. I aim to please.

Which is even more tragicomical.

Talk about jumping to conclusions. How come that the whole birth business, as well as the first steps quest, kid bullying, VATS, original character creation process and all (and that's just from this preview in particular, I just skimmed), "reduce the character's pathos" to HW toting and explosions going on in the background? Sure, the game does seem to have those things from the pics, but the game is not JUST that. You know, it's funny. Because you guys are trying so hard to mischaracterize a game that you know very little about (so that your prejudices seem justified), but in the end, you're all going to end up playing it.

Explain.

WOOHOO!! You know, Aragones' decisions are indeed controversial, and even over here, he's drawn a lot of flak for them. Everyone seems to know how to do things better than him, but he's the only coach that's been able to accomplish anything worth mentioning... Luck or wisdom, I can't make up my mind...

Bah. Not interested unless it's a deathmatch.

Boring, even when trolling. I've sparred with far better than you, so you'll have to do better than to assign a tag to me to discredit what I'm saying. Address my point if what I'm saying is so wrong, instead of looking like a brainless parrot. How about you don't use semantics as a shield, as is your custom, for once? *You* brought "choice" to the thread. It's increasingly obvious that you don't know the meaning of the words you throw around, but that's not my fault. Who's twisting your words? Again, you brought "fault", to the discussion, regarding homosexuality, as well as "choice". The bottom line is that you wouldn't apply either word to being black or gray-eyed, while at the same time, you have been unable to provide any measure of proof to your proposition that "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice", or the "general agreement" around it.

h8 multi-posting, so I'm going to address a lot of posts here A basic requirement, perhaps. A potential ace-card for success, I'm not so sure. I don't know many people (zero, actually) that purchase games based on "ooh, awesome graphics!" or "aah, incredible physics!". It's the general expansion of the industry that provides products with more and more advanced technology and something else, that wins over the consumers. San Andreas, for instance, was as much a success of PR as it was of game design, but it was not technologically ground-breaking by any means, even though it's certainly more advanced than games published 5 years ago. Perhaps we are arguing the same, but I think it's easier to sell games by developing gameplay and other aspects than technology itself. Counter-Strike and any other competitive online-based game prove you wrong. Challenge (and overcoming it) is fun. This is true, unfortunately. Most people prefer to play the latest stupid **** game to a good chess match, and it also explains why the latest Forgotten Realms POS sells far more than Crime and Punishment or Thus Spake Zarathustra. Not much can be done about it, really. The success of Hollywood, adapted to games. That would be fine, if "higher difficulty" didn't mean "increased AI cheating". The first Rainbow Six games were fairly realistic, and they were fun. Also, I like realistic flight sims (IL-2? Argh!). I can see how that's not a mainstream view, though. I was merely referring to the increase of published games per year. I don't know if it's your sincerity that's taken me aback, or your cynicism.