RPGmasterBoo

If youre feeling up for CS 1.6 drop me a note.

Torment and BGII are about saving yourself first and foremost. It depends on how you role play. I role play character who can at best, save the world if he has something to gain by it, or if he has no choice. And I abhor that sort of plot.

He had good reason to think that as he was told that "the US has no opinion" on Kuwait and Iraq's border dispute when he asked prior to invading. He hadn't counted on Saudi Arabia throwing a wobbly, as a combined Iraq/Kuwait could challenge their dominance of OPEC and nearly match their reserves and production capacity You're well informed. Commendable.

More power to you. I'm too jaded to enjoy it anymore. Or rather, to enjoy it on the same level as before. Now its just mindless fun, if even that. The BG series were a profound adventure for me. I'm in the habit of clapping when I complete a really good game. I've done it like 4-5 times in the last ten years. ToB was one of them. KOTOR had its satisfying moments but it was dragged down by a boring plot (more so because I don't like SW). Jade Empire was over before it began. On ME enough has been said. And NWN isn't even worth mentioning.

Why not?

Not for me. But anyway, the draw are the other races and multiplayer.

Its good, that's just the slow, tension creating introduction. I'm not thrilled by the pointer, it obviously confuses more than helps. The graphics aren't mind blowing, but I'm satisfied, or will be if that equates to lower system reqs.

What I suggest is the result of my experience. There are still ruined buildings in Belgrade from the US led bombing (euphemistically called humanitarian intervention), which regardless of the justification had rather clear consequences: most of what was destroyed by the US, and indeed most companies and resources of value, (enormous state owned property) were bought by the US itself (at symbolic prices) in the aftermath of the conflict. They and the EU now own more or less everything of value. The US have installed what's effectively a puppet government, which does their bidding at every turn, as long as it can somehow legitimize this to the general populace. Also, the largest US military base (Bondsteel) in Europe was installed on our sovereign territory (without consent of course), which is incidentally of core historical value "our Jerusalem". The results of the intervention cannot be anything but the inherent goals: -economic control -political control -military expansion Thus the intervention cannot be anything but the means to expand ones sphere of control. Because if the intervention is the end, the US would have once its goals were accomplished - no interest in owning much of our economy and, they wouldn't install a military base of such magnitude (70,000 troops). Applying the same model to Iraq I arrive at the same conclusions. Also, the "humanitarian result" presuming you actually believe that there is a humanitarian crisis often has dire consequences. As far as I'm aware in the entirety of Saddams rule, the number of people killed pales in comparison to the civilian casualties in the events that ensued after his fall. You said its the tens of thousands, (Kurds I presume) yet to this day the minimal estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths post-invasion is 100,000 and goes way above that, up to a million in some estimates. You could say that the US didn't do it, but the chaos was the result of a US invasion so, truly, how was the humanitarian result accomplished? We have a joke here for that: the surgery has succeeded, the patient is dead. ... Your observation on the increasing interdependence of nation states is correct, but the entire world order is founded on nation states, and their sovereign rights. To tamper in their guaranteed and exclusive rights (like the US is doing to Serbia) is to remove the founding stone from the established order and is likely to produce catastrophic results. If the US can and will do what it wants, and intervene anywhere without mandate then fear of it will motivate most countries to try to preserve their power, amongst other ways by acquiring WMD's. *There are no minorities in SA, mostly because Islam has a tradition of assimilating or destroying them. The oppression is one of the Shariah law, oppression of women, extreme poverty, and of total and unchecked, despotic rule of the royal family. Much more than Saddam could ever hope for himself.

Arcanum was one of the very few steampunk RPG's if not the only one worth noting. Bloodlines is the only Vampire themed RPG worth anything, and one of only two at that. TOEE was the most generic of the lot, but it was well made in many parts. Seriously, take your dried frog pills for the day.

It's supposed to be. Just like tantric sex. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. +1

To your first point: reality disproves this. He kept the tensions between the Sunni, Shia and Kurdish muslims inherent to Iraq in check, thus stabilizing the country. He was far more capable than the current government of Iraq, which even with the backing of the US military can't make Iraq into a merely functional state. Unlike them who are seen as a colonial government/traitors he had a modicum of legitimacy amongst the majority of the populace. Saddam also kept Iran in check, which is now heavily involved in Iraq, through terrorist networks, arms deals and so on. The reserves of oil that Iraq has are the sole property of its people, and the only thing I can derive out of your argument is an assumption that invading a country is somehow okay because it has resources vital to you and your friends. If they wish to hold all the oil for themselves (even though they cant since its Iraq's principal export), that's their sovereign right. The second point is perhaps unintentionally hypocritical. The US has a track record of supporting dictatorial leaders, if it served its interests - especially during the cold war. A simple (contemporary) example is Saudi Arabia. That's probably the most despotic and savage country in the world, which keeps its populace living in the middle ages - yet its royal family enjoys full support of the US. Its also the hub of Islamic terror groups, some of which participated in September 11. In comparison with them Saddam seemed a moderate, secular leader. Why would you "help the oppressed" in Iraq and help the oppression of the people of Saudi Arabia, all the while keeping alive the core of Islamic terrorism and a rotten monarchy? Idealism is nice Walsingham, but its not applicable to US foreign policy. Like any other country its approach is fully pragmatic and will invoke ideals when necessary to justify its questionable actions. What you list there are justifications for the war, not the cause behind it. Those justifications are brought about to convince the American people, (which are basically well intentioned and taught to value their particular brand of liberty and individual freedoms) that the war is just or at the very least "justified enough". The only way to gain the support of Americans is by putting a straightforward moral core in any deed, and to make them believe that they are "doing the right thing". US leaders know this and abuse it at leisure. The real cause is: the necessity to secure a dwindling resource for the US, for the future, to help the military industrial complex and oil companies flourish, since they are heavily incorporated into the american governement to expand US military presence, and effective rule and last but not the least, to intimidate anyone who dares oppose the will of the US through a show of strength. This applies to everyone, not just "dictators"

No one beats Edwin: Greetings. I am Edwin Odesseiron. You simians may refer to me merely as "Sir," if you prefer a less... syllable-intensive workout.

Like I said Oner, there's a world of difference between doing it, and doing it right.

What I meant was they shouldn't be a quest that abruptly ends when you get laid.

I'm not sure I understand the question but here: Sex could be a logical next step in a PC-NPC interaction/relationship. If the relationship is well written it should flow as naturally as any other interaction, even multiple times during a game. When its only once the quest structure of the whole ordeal is painfully obvious, meaning that sex ends up being a reward like any other - not a part of a relationship. Sex/romance is not a must. When it becomes something that has to be included in a game, it wont work. Just about any feeling is easier to invoke than affection. Especially if you're trying to portray real people and not cute, loveable characters (think anime), or concepts (companion cube from HL2) - which is what Bioware does. Keeping it real has a price, because real people aren't as endearing as symbols. Even BGII love interests weren't particularly endearing, but due to the enormity of time you spent with them they (much like real people) grew on you. Even so, the only truly successful romance was Jaheira, because it took so much time and effort. In ME, they could have concentrated only building up the relationship in the first game (which would have given them much more space to work), and presented the sex in the second or even third game. Instead they pushed it to the end of a 20 hour game (of which 13+hours are combat), thus robbing themselves of the opportunity to develop anything, especially with their by default overlong relationship structure (NPC telling their backstory > NPC showing vulnerable side > NPC in doubt > NPC confesses feelings > sex). Much more successful are romantic interactions where sex doesn't figure at all eg: Annah and Fall-from-Grace. I still wonder what's in Grace's journal, and that's bloody hard to do. In short: sex gives a little flavor, but it can ruin everything either by becoming an end unto itself, or just being clumsily implemented. The trade off is often not worth it. ... Of course all of this is useless if the developers themselves don't know who they are making the game for. ME2 may be rated 18 only but its painfully obvious that the target audience are 15 year old males. Conversely Planescape Torment was rated T by ESRB, and yet its plainly a game made for mature players. Go figure.

You've got a weird head.

My demo download died on 99%. I already hate this game.

Aw come on, you're not felling the cool factor with a song like that Immerse yourself in cardboard characters and comic book implausability, let your IQ drop and enjoy the ride.

I'm so going renegade this time. I've even got a song Btw the characters still have an emo moment, if the video is anything to go by. Dunno why that was necessary in a team of killers and madmen. Also I don't see why they have to persistently suck up to the PC. I mean when I played the child of a god they didn't suck up, yet here they do it for a grunt.

The US has over a thousand nuclear warheads, and god knows how many other WMD, and no one is exactly complaining, let alone considering embargoes. Hypocrisy aside, its well known why various leaders want WMD's: its a guarantee that they wont be attacked by the US. Not to actually use them, because the moment you do - the other side gets the legitimacy to use them as well. How is it any worse for Saddam to have WMD's than the US? And secondly how was that a threat to the US? Its not like he had ICBM's. You might have to pay for the oil, but the US corporations that have installed themselves there are having a field day (from oil to security). They hijacked the US military and state apparatus for their own purposes. For like the thousandth time. The devastation was caused by the inability of the US to control the territory they conquered. By destroying Saddam they made a power vacuum in a highly volatile and divided state, and they were unable to fill it. Thus, as any fool could have forseen - all chaos ensued. Saddam, whatever else he was, was capable of holding the tensions and violence inherent to Iraq in check. Removing him was terminal to the Iraqi state. It takes a lot of willpower not to see that, and blame it on something as ephemeral as terrorists.

1 The mothership launch sequence and the destruction of Kharak are some of the most powerful moments in the history of gaming. @Will: money and ships are persistent. Dont move on to the next mission until you've stripped the map bare of resources. Tip2: capture ships, its cost efficient.

You're half correct. The book was a just about above average scifi/horror story, with a few good ideas. The film ditches even those few ideas, and thus what remains is rubbish. Plus its possibly the worst CGI I've ever seen in a major motion picture.

I thought the movie was rubbish, and missed the point of the book entirely.