Wrath of Dagon

I've looked over his quotes and I'm not seeing anything that says "I hate the US" He clearly has major issues with the way the government is run, particularly foreign policy. But you aren't a fan of our current president and you have been very vocal about that, and no one has accused you of anti-Americanism. Critisizing the President when you disagree with him isn't the same as constantly siding with our enemies, especially the scum bags he's been siding with. And a lot of them aren't even on trial, like the Iranians, so why's he defending them? Edit: I agree media is often biased and doesn't tell the full story, but they rarely lie outright, and when they do they usually get caught. The key is to get multiple sources, and take everything with a grain of salt.

That was about as amusing as the game itself.

A Hamlet RPG would totally work. It's all about choices, right?

If you look at the statements he makes while assisting those people, you'll see he's not doing it for justice, but out of a burning hatred for the US.

He seems to have become quite a bit more radicalized since then. But I suppose he's great to anyone who hates the US. From Michelle Malkin:

OK, first of all, this ruling does not mean that corporations can give unlimited money to candidates. What it does mean is that they themselves can run ads on any subject, including supporting or opposing a candidate. They can not coordinate with a campaign either, so theoretically they could do more harm than good. Under McCain-Feingold, perfectly legitimate organizations like the NRA or NARAL couldn't run adds 60 days before the election for or against a candidate, in other words you have the right of free speech, except when it actually matters. Also McCain-Feingold did nothing to decrease the influence of special interests, if anything it increased it, since the harder it is to collect money, the more influence the lobbyists have, and their influence has only been increasing in spite and because all of the laws.

He's part of the loony left. From your link:

Since his Al got gored. Political freedom means freedom to organize, not just an individual right of free speech. Thus organizations have the same right of free speech that individuals do. There's no rule that you can't overturn a bad precedent, the decision was strictly constitutional and thus not judicial activism. And Enoch, do you actually know there was a Supreme Court ruling that corporations had no right of free speech? I don't think I've ever heard of such a ruling. There were rulings against unlimited political contributions, but those still stand. Edit: Never mind, I see the OP article says there were.

Are you addressing me or the guy who wrote the article? The reviewer.

I've seen a lot of attack ads by third parties that ended with "call this candidate about this issue" thus making it technically an issue ad, not an endorsement ad. The law has been evaded anyway, and now at least it's back to being constitutional.

NATO was supposed to be an alliance of countries against the Soviet Union, Australia wasn't directly threatened. And Ramsey Clark is respectable?

Yes, I know it's a big surprise, but we have free speech in this country.

Written by a true fanboy. He even speaks for everyone in the world.

Now you're fighting against Ob...er I meant a collectivist.

Why doesn't Bioware just go all the way already and start making alien hentai?

To be fair, Srebrenica is not in Kosovo, and was not the work of the Yugoslav government to my knowledge. Something to consider also is that Kosovar terrorists purposely tried to provoke the Serbs into atrocities to gain international support.

Diamonds are easy to make artificially now, no big deal.

It's probably because the developers feel they need to stroke the pathetic little egos of social reject gamers.

Jordan Thomas also did the Fort Frolic part of Bioshock 1, so you can judge how much you liked that.

May be, it was before I started playing games, or at least I wasn't aware of it at the time. Maybe you have just become jaded over time, or you've placed the early games on a pedestal? I'm not sure how you can possibly put JE over DA on the quality scale. I liked JE, but I think most folks agree it isn't their best work, whereas DA has gotten quite a bit of positive reaction from the community. I certainly don't put JE on a pedestal, I see plenty of problems with it. I think what it comes down to different people look for different things from a game. In an RPG I look for well designed quests, as they make me feel I'm fully participating in the game world and story. JE has plenty of those (though not all), DAO hardly has any. As far as quality of execution, DA probably is better than JE (although the art design is more generic). It's in the quality of design, specifically quest design, where it really falls down. To see that for example, compare the haunted orphanage quest in DA with any of the ghost quests in JE (like the ghost children, or the liver transplant, or pretty much the whole sunken city).

May be, it was before I started playing games, or at least I wasn't aware of it at the time.

I thought what I said was quite clear, but I'll explain further. KOTOR was my favorite game ever. JE was also good, but incomplete (in retrospect, the start of the fall of Bio) ME was extremely disappointing, DAO a little better but still crappily designed. At this point I'm unwilling to continue to give the benefit of the doubt to Bio. OK, but for it to be interactive storytelling, pounding the pegs would have to be an important part of the story somehow. Edit: And OK, you're talking about interacting with the narrative, not interactive storytelling, so we're not really talking about the same thing. The best I can do here is point to Age of Decadence again, and I'm assuming it'll live up to its promises.

I don't buy their games anyway, I bought their last two games, didn't like them, and not planning to buy any more. So far as what they do from now on, I care no more than what the rest of EA does.

To me, the best thing about games is interactive storytelling. There should be no conflict there at all. The problem is many developers treat story and gameplay as separate things, but to be a powerful medium games have to merge the two. Of course there's a conflict. The more choices the player is allowed, the more difficult is becomes to present a well-structured narrative. If the choices are trivial ones, then it is less of an issue, certainly, since the narrative doesn't have to alter grearlt to present a trivial choice. But major choices require major alterations of the narrative. Good luck with that in this day and age of inflated game budgets. Down the road, if AI becomes better at responding to player chocie and altering narrative flow dynamically, then it would be much more possible. Interactive doesn't just mean you occassionally get to make a "big" choice, although that's what Bioware is now defaulting to. In fact the best interactive story telling I've seen are games like Call of Cthulhu, Shenmue 2, and Thief: DS, where you hardly make any choices at all. Of course it's also possible to tell a story in a choice driven game, which is what Age of Decadence is trying to do, so we'll see how well that works. As far as mainstream developers, let's just say their priorities lie elsewhere $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It was an air war, not a ground war. I read Clinton and Albright thought Milosevic would fold as soon as they started bombing, but they miscalculated and it turned into a protracted operation.