Wrath of Dagon

The comparison with alcohol isn't really valid. Alcohol is actually beneficial if you don't get drunk but use it as another food. Pot harms both your brain and your lungs, but I guess that's what natural selection is all about.

I didn't say Bioware has never been creative. And while Obsidian did make some sequels, they brought something new to all of them.

A new proposal which seems to make some sense: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39432.html

It's a lot easier to create huge levels when they consist entirely of long textureless walls.

At least Obsidian tries to do something different. Bioware doesn't have a single creative thought in their collective brain. AP isn't so great that it has to have a sequel. The cancellation of the Aliens RPG was probably a far greater loss.

Why? It's a Bioware-driven Star Wars MMO. That's three boxes ticked in the "money" category already. I don't like Bioware's games on the whole, but they're popular, and what you have in the making here is a way to cash in on three fanbases - and three different attractions to the game. I see this one running quite successfully, at least for a while. I've no intention of playing it, but most KotOR fans I know intend to at least try it. Hell, I imagine most gamers with an interest in Star Wars are going to at least try it. We ran a poll on KotORFiles, and even in the heart of the Revan fanboy world, over half the respondents were stoked for the MMO. And that's arguably where you'd expect the most resistance to the idea. I'm sure lots of people will try it, I just haven't seen anything that will keep them playing. I don't play MMO's though, so what do I know. But no one so far has been able to take on WoW.

What superior games has AP ripped off? You still haven't told us what this fundamental flaw is.

My prediction is the MMO will crash and burn. Bioware and LA said the MMO is a replacement for K3, btw.

It's just not the kind of game a mainstream gamer will appreciate, fundamentally that's all there's to it. Sure if they polished it more it would get somewhat better reviews, and thus a few more sales, but I don't think it would ever become a big hit.

I never expected otherwise. Although it's more the audience's fault than Obsidian's.

The universal excuse for everything.

I don't see how any of your proposals would make a dent in illegal immigration. As far as improving Mexican economy, that's what NAFTA was for. There's only so much others can do on behalf of someone else. The biggest thing keeping Mexico back is their corruption and drug trafficking, and securing our border would at least help with the drug trafficking.

If minigames were meant to be bypassed, why have them in the first place? Reviewers evaluate the entire game, not just the required parts. The tutorial showed you throwing an EMP at a lock, it didn't mention anything about disabling any minigame with EMP if you have one point in sabotage. Besides, just using EMP's you miss a hell of a lot of loot, and have to fill almost all the inventory slots with EMP's, of course the minigames are a huge pain. As far as pointing out all the cool RPG stuff, a lot of reviewers mentioned that the bad gameplay ruined the rest of the game for them, even if it had some merit. I personally don't agree the gameplay is bad, but there's no accounting for taste. Even Gamebanshee's own review was quite harsh on the gameplay. Edit: His justification for having mini-games is really funny too, "all modern games have them". It doesn't matter almost everyone hates them.

I found it amusing that he's blaming AP's bad reviews on the reviewers.

No, one of her first edicts was that men who think they're women are now allowed to use women's bathrooms.

No, I want them stopped at the border, instead of coming here to enjoy American taxpayer's bounty. Let's all sing Kumbaya, that'll fix everything. I don't want to create a partnership with people who feel entitled to disregard our law. Clamping down on illegal immigration hasn't worked because the government isn't really interested in doing so, and will always come up with a million excuses for why it can't be done. Look at Obama's illegal alien aunt. She was caught and ordered to be deported, yet continued to live in a public housing project for years, and has now been given asylum. Look at people giving fake documents and social security numbers to gain employment. The employer deposits tax payments under a fake social security number every month, the government knows the social security number is made up, yet chooses to do nothing. Law enforcement is a joke.

Did you know the mayor of Houston is a lesbian?

Wow, you know so much about Texas sitting over there in Finland.

Wow, the most inappropriate analogy I've seen in like ever. And I'm sure California taxpayers are deeply grateful to you for using their hard earned money to educate Mexican children. Edit: Believe it or not, we do have public healthcare for the poor, and the illegals have no compunction about using it. The hospitals aren't allowed to ask about their immigration status either.

I'm confused, are you saying if we just let everyone in, we won't need fences? Plus I thought billions was pocket change to you guys in government.

Um, what? You do realize that roads have positive externalities on the rest of the economy, right? Goods purchased everywhere end up being cheaper if the cost of moving them and their component parts around the country is lower. Fences don't do that. And have you got any kind of source for that cost estimate? A city like, say, Houston, employs 5400 cops, and has a budget of about $650M/year. Apply that to the border, and you have 2 3/4 people per mile. That would certainly catch some people, but coverage would be well short of 100%. Then, you've got to consider the other half of the equation-- what would be a fair dollar-figure estimate of the benefits of "securing the border"? (Accounting for the costs, too, like how much more expensive domestically grown produce will be when the industry is forced into using a wholly legal workforce. And construction. And childcare. And on and on. The prevalence of the illegal workforce is a bad thing for a lot of reasons, but getting rid of it does mean that costs for a lot of things are going go up.) 2 3/4 people per mile is plenty to patrol a fence. I think LA has something like 15000 cops. The benefits would be enormous, we would dramatically cut crime, drug smuggling, and illegal immigrant social care costs. Plus we wouldn't lose our country, like every other dumb**** in history. Edit: And your argument is what, we should take advantage of the cheap illegal labor, while hypocritically passing minimum wage laws?

Yes, simple solution, make people not greedy. Enforcing the illegal hiring law might work as a disinsentive (although it'll create a huge outcry if the government really starts enforcing it) but it won't secure our borders against drug smugglers and terrorists. Only a patrolled fence will do that. To say the cost of the fence is excessive is ridiculous, we've probably build more than a million miles of roadway as part of the interstate highway system. To patrol it would be roughly equivalent to one large city police department.

Sounds like a pretty fun game from most reviews, Wolfenstein was also panned as generic but it was quite good.

Build a real border fence and patrol it. Send an army division if necessary, they're not doing much in their bases anyway. Problem solved.

So obviously if you're already disabled, the law applies. Their point was that an infectious decease by itself isn't a disability.