Wrath of Dagon

Of course not. Uncle Obama will make it all better, there, there.

Dagon is not an elder god. Also Dagon wasn't killed, he became wrathful and Also in the original Call of Cthulhu story, Cthulhu himself gets run over by a fairly small boat.

Uh. that's because Morrowind wasn't dumbed down? Oblivion is a dumbed down version of Morrowind, less skills, less possibilites, much less attention to lore or story, less weapons, less spells, Xbrick as the primary development platform. Even if one accepts the premise that O was "dumbed down" and M wasn't, I don't see how one can logically blame "consoles" when both games were console releases. O was "dumbed down" because 1) many of the changes were flat-out improvements, and 2) more user-friendly games tend to sell more copies, regardless of platform. The console/PC factor is irrelevant. PC gamers tend to be a lot more anal-retentive. Thus any game that's less anal-retentive is automatically guilty of consolitis and being dumbed down.

I'm not saying get rid of the missions, I'm just saying keep the free roaming also, except expand it from what it was in DS. I thought the combination worked very well in that game.

I'm hoping for big free-roaming city part, where you can break into random apartments for loot and discover side stories.

That's actually debatable, in a lot of cases it leads to over diagnosis and a lot of unnecessary treatments. The cost crisis is in catastrophic care, not in routine care. Here are some interesting political insights: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22155.html

I'm pretty sure it'll be stealth based, otherwise what's the point? The quality is a concern though, given it's a brand new studio with no track record.

No one's said yet it'll be in modern setting, I would bet it won't be.

Apparently the leading plan right now is to break up employer funded insurance and route money directly to individuals to buy their own insurance: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22087.html Don't know how well it'll work, they were raising my premiums 25% a year when I bought my own insurance.

Thief needs the ability to run from rooftop to rooftop, that would make it perfect, not that I expect much from the new studio.

It doesn't matter, the medicine is made in bulk, pharmacies buy in bulk. Your theory would only work if the government distribution chain was more efficient than a private one, which has been proven to be false over and over again. So far as I know in Canada medicine is still sold through private pharmacies, but the price is government controlled.

Because it's every man for himself. So long as a politician is supplying pork for his own district/state, they don't care he's not acting in the national interest. Now if he's dumb enough to actually break the law and get caught, he'll be removed from office, but so long as he's getting legal bribes, i.e. getting political contributions in return for doing favors for the contributors, no one seems to mind because everyone else is doing the same, so why should the voters single out their own representative? But the larger issue is that the original intent was to have citizen legislators, not a professional politician class. Once they've been out of the private sector for so long, they lose touch and just go along with the prevailing political culture.

They'd be voting against their self-interest unless every other state does the same. Legislative term limits are a good idea for the same reason presidential term limits are. It doesn't matter how talented one is if he's corrupt. Well, sure. But where's the evidence for the connection that you're assuming exists between time spent in office and corruption? Despite what Frank Capra would have you believe, I suspect that first-term legislators are just as likely to be corrupt as 20-year veterans (but somewhat less likely to be competent). I don't have hard statistics, but all the people I can think of who were accused of corruption were serving long term. I believe the maxim that power corrupts, and that once they start believing they're part of the ruling class they begin thinking they don't have to play by the same rules as us peons. Aside from corruption, if the terms were limited perhaps they wouldn't be so obsessed with keeping themselves in power, which to me is what's causing most of the problems in our political system.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. So far it is, I like the dialogues, too early to be sure. I had to put graphics on min setting to keep from constantly crashing.

But did any of them actually believe that the government had no right to regulate personal morality? Religious freedom does not imply the absense of societal consensus on personal morality, for example I don't think it extended to things like Devil worship in their views.

They'd be voting against their self-interest unless every other state does the same. Legislative term limits are a good idea for the same reason presidential term limits are. It doesn't matter how talented one is if he's corrupt. Do you have any actual examples of that?

I don't think they really know what all the markers for virulence are. All they're saying here is this virus isn't the same as the other one, which of course is true considering how fast flu viruses mutate. On the other hand I heard a convincing argument on the radio that since all these tourists got infected, the infection must be very widespread in Mexico, 100s of thousands or millions of people. The fact that there aren't thousands and thousands dead means the virus can't be that dangerous.

We badly need term limits, having a professional politician class is completely contrary to the original intent. In case of Specter though, he said he feels more aligned with the Democrats now, and his own Republicans in Penn seem to hate him, so what's the downside for him?

Bummer

I disagree with you here. Socially liberal thinkers seek to brand everything as ok. Libertarians simply value maximum personal freedom. For example; Personally I think abortion is morally wrong and abhorrent. However, I also believe that everyone should be free to pursue that option if they see fit. I would never participate in one and would try to dissuade anyone considering one but I would never they to stop them and I certainly would not ask the state to do it on my behalf. I do not believe it is my place as a citizen to impose my personal morality on anyone and far too many people think the state is simply a tool to do just that. Well, you're right, I intentionally glossed over that distinction. The religious right is a major constituent of the GOP, I guess you could try to find/create enough libertarians to replace them, but I don't see that as viable. As far as not imposing morality, that's a very recent development, certainly when the constitution was written that was accepted as a matter of course.

Of course that's true, as Libertarians tend to be socially liberal. As far as Club for Growth, they're not the same thing as the Republican party, any more than Move On is the Democratic party.

So in 10 years if you still want to play it you buy it from whatever the equivalent of Steam will be for $1.50 Saying since I might not be able to play it in 10 years so I won't play it at all doesn't make much sense.

The Republican party is made up of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives, often in the same person. If you lose any of these groups, Republicans are through, pure and simple. On the other hand, driving someone who's moderate on any of these issues out of the party is equally suicidal. US has a two party system, thus a boutique party will never gain power, but I suppose they can feel good about their purity.

Just to clarify, I meant the Witcher's cost was $10 million.

So do you guys buy a happy meal and wonder if you'll still be able to eat it in 10 years?