Wrath of Dagon

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.

I'm pretty sure there were cases brought on those grounds under ADA, but the courts didn't necessarily grant all of them.

IW is 10 times the game that AP is.

What's even more outrageous is that in ETW St Petersburg exists in 1700 insead of 1703 and starts out under Swedish control!

The good news is it got cooler. The bad news is there's a hurricane coming!

More on this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100628/india_...Wx5c3RzcGFraQ--

Must've lost a lot in translation.

What!? But I've been told Finland is the most wonderful country on earth.

BG&E is more of an action/stealth adventure than a platformer, although it does have some platformer bits.

But it's gone way to far in the other direction, the Taliban know there's isn't much we can do against them. In the end, people will side with whoever they perceive as being stronger and will be around longer. To Monte's point, securing the civilian population is part of the counter-insurgency strategy and seems to have been successful in Iraq. We do need to deal with Iran and Pakistan problem to have a chance of success though. Edit: Here's a pretty interesting article on the new situation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/0859919992510...W1hcGV0cmFldQ--

This rumour makes no sense, why would a publisher object to games being cheaper to make in the UK? Not that there should be tax breaks for anyone in any case.

The switch to Petreus may be good thing though. I keep reading McChrystal's policies were so restrictive our troops felt like they were fighting with their hands tied. Some stopped even calling for air support because air support was afraid to do anything.

Widely spaced checkpoints.