Aristes

Anyhow, I'm in the last chapter of Max Payne. You know, this is my third time and I have to say, I still really enjoy the game. Yeah, I now bypass all the cutscenes, but no biggie. I'm really glad about the purchase. ...And it just goes to show that I get good gaming advice from you freaks.

Hahahaha Death by tentacles. That was unexpected. ...AND! You should play Call of Cthulu: Dark Corners of the Earth for a chance to get killed by even more and stranger tentacles.

I might go for the Human Noble or the Feral Elf (Or whatever they call it).

The Pristige was a weird but fun film. I quite enjoyed it, although I thought it was kind of goofy. We've been watching old and new episodes of Eureka. I think we might end up buying the series sets. Campy but enjoyable. Wife likes it more than me, but we both like it.

Great, now you guys have gone nutso. Where's my shaking head icon when I need it most? What you really need to do is assess what all this means. Did he, by his actions, truly damage your friendship with others, and if so, whom? What's your end game with the lady in question? What's your end game with your gonzo friend? I mean, is there room for forgiveness, or is this chump on the outs for good? These are the questions to ask yourself before you take any other action. Don't make a decision in the heat of the moment. Note, I'm trying to be the angel on your shoulder, but that makes me a stinking hypocrite, since I've made all sorts of decisions in the heat of the moment. I still don't advise it tho.

I'm on my third run of Max Payne. The hardest level isn't that bad. It does limit saves, which is too bad. However, it's not nearly as bad as some games I've played where they literally don't let you save except for save points. I think Blood Money and Painkiller are far worse at the hardest setting.

I haven't wanted to pile on Junai, but this is really the case. Even conspiracy theorists claim different causes, sometimes diametrically opposed causes, for certain events. Every conspiracy theorist I've known has argued just as vehemently for his own view as each of the others. They can't all be right. The point is that there are conspiracies. However, the threshold for claiming a conspiracy must remain high. Otherwise we either have the mere claim of a conspiracy gain weight of its own or we dilute the meaning of the word so it loses all traction. I think the 9-11 investigation was certainly flawed, and my reasons are probably quite different from a lot of folks and similar or the same as others. However, it had sufficient oversight and broad support that I'm willing to accept its views. Are there about a million websites out there that pick at various flaws in the commission? Yes. Are there petitions that castigate the commission? Of course. Are there folks who support creating a new commission? Absolutely. However, the 9-11 commission is sufficient and there is no need to spend the time, money, and resources keeping the issue alive for folks who will never be satisfied with the outcome no matter how long the investigation takes. ...But the real problem is that, if we have some shadow organization that has sufficient power to control the media and the government while keeping its actions hidden, then we're sunk anyhow. I mean, I've read the conspiracy sites and heard the arguments and evidence. There's still no smoking gun. If the best the most avid conspiracy investigators can do is what they've done so far, then they've lost. I don't want to be obnoxious to you Junai. Once I realized you seriously believed all of this, I just kind of felt sympathy for you. It is undoubtedly a scary world out there with Fox news literally being in on the great conspiracy, virtually the entire news media in the hip pocket of shadowy government forces, and our lives under the complete control of some unseen force. I'm not facetious. Going through life with that outlook must be quite grim indeed. In theory, could that outlook be true? *shrug* I suppose. ...But there is no rock solid evidence, only cherry-picked bits of information that have been strung in a specific line to lead to a particular conclusion. Since that's the case, without solid proof, we're better off enjoying our lives and living as best we can. Keep fighting the good fight, Junai, but I think you're wrong and, regardless, I think you do more harm than good. Most folks have already accepted the 9-11 commission report and moved on with life. That's undoubtedly what a conpirator would want, assuming it's a lie. Assuming it's the best a hodpodge assortment of interests could do under the circumstances, it's probably what the vast majority of the people want as well.

That's a toughie, but I think your case is pretty cut and dried, Shady. I mean, if she had thought of it as a potential invasion of privacy, she could have changed her password. Hell, I couldn't have some cutie use my email. I have my wife check it for me all the time. I sometimes check her email, but niether of us mind. If she suddenly changed her password without telling me, alarm bells would ring. The upshot is, your ex was stupid to use her email to talk to her lover or whatnot. Moreover, she consented to give you access to her email when she gave you knowledge of her password. She could have changed it or created a different account, and the fact that she didn't pretty much says either she wanted to be caught (possibly out of guilt or some such) or she's just an idiot. Anyhow, you might not feel proud, but you sure as hell shouldn't feel guilty.

You know, I've never read an Ayn Rand novel. In fact, I don't believe I've read anything she's written at all. For all of her importance as a writer, especially in academic circles, I can only feel the impact through her influence on others.

My condolances as well, Awesomeness. I've lost two friends this year to cancer. Take care of yourself. As for you, LC, I think you have a real talent for photography. I virtually always enjoy seeing your pics. We went to the Redlands Bowl and saw the final dress rehearsal for 1776. Not the best production I've seen but it's free so no biggie. It was fun and I know all the words anyhow. I'd like to see the Pirates of Penzance, but I might skip it. Greg fun, but I hate hasseling with the seating and whatnot. Anyhow, I've been to the Bowl twice this year and to the Shakespeare festival twice. I think I can sit it out. Now, if it were a larger venue, I would totally be willing to go. I'm a huge fan of Gilbert and Sullivan.

Anyhow, Junai, I think I've been overly harsh. I mean that. There really are conspiracies and there are rumors of conspiracy that aren't true. It's undoubtedly a good thing to have folks on both ends of the spectrum looking at the facts.

who's to say they didn't verify the sources? I mean we don't exactly see everything they told us. Much better! The sources might be legitimate, therefore they must be believed! Huzzah! That's how everyone should evaluate the news! Wow, four!!!!

Yep, your quote proves your case. Now must get folks to sign your petition and you've got a rock solid case. No pesky judge. No jury. No one to advocate both sides. Just you and the quotes in isolation you can dredge up. Anyone who questions the method must either be one of the sheep or one of the conspirators. haha Keep reading between the lines and you'll get my take on your foolish argument. Not that I'm calling you foolish, you understand. Just your argument.

Yep, that was the trial I was looking for, Junai. Good work man. You will single handedly bring down the government and replace it with something better. In fact, rule by petition would be great!

I somewhat agree with Maria, but there are two things at play. First of all, if Alan addressed me directly, I'd say confront the guy. I'm a born 'gain Krishtun, but I confront folks when they've wronged me. Sometimes, it turns out they haven't, then I just feel stupid. I don't always take their word for it, but I do speak to them directly. I don't think laying the trap was bad. I just think checking the guy's open email is bad. Of course, I'm a paranoid Catholic, so I don't leave crap open. Second of all, even though I really do think what Alan did was wrong, I know him. He's an internet buddy. So, I cowboyed up and said he was wrong, but I also saw the bright side and that was that he didn't do something stupid like cause bodily harm to this rotten rat ****ing bastard who was two timing him. Frankly, what he did was bad, but ****head was disloyal, which is one of the few things that causes this here nancy boy Christian to see red. ...And I've been to brig and subsequently been sent to alcohol rehab for some of the stupid crap I've done. I honestly don't think he should the despicable traitor's ass. I just understand that we all do stupid things that aren't good. Lest you think I'm admonishing you, though, I agree with your points entirely. Really, what I'm putting out there is a caveat. Yeah, this was a stupid thing to do, but we're his buddies and so we're going to be supportive after the fact. If he'd broached the subject before hand, I would have told him to confront the guy. Not spoiling for a fight, but not timidly either.

Junai Junai Junai... Although I'm generally not rude, I don't mind it if the situation fits. Your argument, at least the bare bones of an implied argument that come out of your posts, is imbecilic. By that I don't mean that you are a fool. That really would be both rude and also against the forum policies. Instead, I say that, while your posts are worthless and add nothing to the conversation, you yourself might be absolutely brilliant. I've seen that in a lot of consipracy theorists. You know, crazy or stupid ideas rampaging around in the head of a really bright person. As with all conspiracies, I say show me the money. That doesn't mean a tortured trail sprinkled with conjecture and supported by useless sources. That means that a jury of 12 would agree that the only reasonable judgement is that a conspiracy had occured. There are conspiracies. There are even conspiracies where clearly something has gone awry, but the exact nature of it cannot be proved. However, there is a vast gulf between the number of conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies.

Yeah, it was a despicable act, but it's better than beating him several times with a bat.

Hey, it's an English pub in Redlands, CA. It's a novelty item, not the real thing. They have all sorts of 'football' signs, like Manchester United. I have to say that it looks like the English pubs I've seen over in England. I tend not to drink anymore, so pubs are wasted on me. It's kind of like real English pubs in that it's a bar and a restraunt. The food in infinitely better at the Falconer, though. lol

I think the problem with character death in games is that it requires time for the player to haul back to town to have someone raised or it will require a reload if someone wants the character in the party. Personally, one thing I have always hated about a lot of games over the past several years is that it did away with death in games. Combat is far more personally involved when you're worried about losing a companion. Now, I believe Fallout 3 had NPC death, but I've almost never played with them in any of the Fallout games, by and large because of the crazy AI. ...But, to be fair, AI has come a long way since the days when my pixie companion in NWN kept bashing her head against the locked door trying to get to the locked and trapped chest on the other side... and there was nothing the player could do to prevent it. After seeing that a couple times, I simply finished the game without any NPCs at all. EDIT: I almost left my "without any PCs" typo in because it struck me as a funny slip. Then I figured it would be confusing as hell.

Hey, it would have to try hard to be one-up the Witcher. See, I basically thought all the sex in that was a waste of time also, although they turned it into a minigame which makes it slightly more interesting. Kind of like real life when you're younger! lol

You didn't feed them enough! I went to see Harry Potter today and then had lunch at the Falconer, an English pub. The salad was wonderful.

I've actually heard that Viconia's romance was a good one. Of course, I didn't like any of the romances and I doubt Viconia's would have been different. I do like the idea of redemption, which was what one of my buddies described to me as the central theme to the romance between his Paladin and the drow. Still, I just think the romances are an awful waste of time. There's virtually never been a time I haven't thought that I'd rather see valuable time spent elsewhere in development. Even Indigo Prophecy, where the romance is central to the game, didn't do more than annoy me. The sole exception is PS:T for the reasons I've already stated. First and foremost among those reasons is the fact that PS:T didn't have real romances. If the time scale and situations warranted a true romance, I'd think that was great. Hell, I can certainly accept that, having survived several battles and being strung out and wound up you might end up having sex with one of the NPCs, but out and out falling in love? If they manage to do one right, I'll eat crow in this very thread. Upshot is, sex in games like this makes a hell of a lot more sense than love.

You could rely on the AI in the KOTORs too, but that was because the games were just way too easy. ...And that was one of the points I was trying to make. I actually enjoyed the KotOR games, but combat was streamlined so much that not only was your control of your NPCs less than stellar, I often thought my control of my PC wasn't that great either. I never played ME, but I would say that, if the AI isn't much different, the AI wasn't good enough to take care of things but rather that the battles were bad enough that even the AI could handle them. The AI is pretty bad in every game I've played, MC. Even mediocre decisions that the AI makes are served as prime examples of improved AI.

lay down some sweet riffs and upload them so we can make fun of yo-- er encourage your progress. hahaha Jerkface! But I agree, upload some tunes, Tig. And I liked seeing the cute little bugger, LC. The geese were nice, but I know how mean geese are in real life. Keep them in photos!

I've always really hated the 'role-playing' argument. That's not a pointed statement aimed at you, Dakar. I'm speaking kind of generally. The problem is that the AI is just plain stupid. The best AI run party does not make good decisions. When I role-play, the people there might make mistakes, but they're also clever and I can come up with complex tactics and strategies. That is simply not possible with the AI controlling the other members of the party. Now, if you get a bunch of new players, I'm sure your results in combat won't be much better than an AI controlled party, if at all. However, with folks who know how to play their characters, you'll fare significantly better with other players than with AI control. The other thing is that the role playing aspect has so much to do with the player interactions which is simply absent from a single player cRPG. I mean, you would really expect that each of the characters would work in his own self-interest and according to his personal motives. For some of them, that means supporting the group and sharing resources. For others that means striving to take or control as much of the loot as possible. The AI fails even more dismally as regards this sort of interaction than it falls short on the combat front. Hey, we've got an imperfect medium, but it's a trade off between PnP and computers. I fall more into the control your NPCs group and others fall squarely in the single character group, which is fair enough. I'm just glad that DA age apparently allows for both. Hopefully the control is better than the NWN/KotOR games. In those, controls sucked for everyone. Still some great games in there though.