Aristes

I'll go one more, Maria. The fact that making it to Jedi in SWG was undoubtedly part of what killed the game. No matter how much the purists scream, making it hard to be a Jedi at start will help sell this game. There will be far fewer people angry about that decision than would have been angry that they had to wait to create a Jedi. I think that's what Hurlshot meant up above, and so I will just add my voice to his.

I'm going to disagree. Say everyone is a force user - how many is that per server? 25,000 divided among Jedi and Sith plus the force using NPCs, but Star Wars is supposed to be an entire galaxy. Even if every PC is a Jedi/Sith, they'd still make up a small part of the galaxy's total population. No one cares that everyone around them is totally awesome and tubular. Hell, that's not just MMORPGs. Look at the Forgotten Realms setting for DnD.

I conceded making a few leaps in my assessment earlier, but I think you're making a big leap yourself, crashgirl. You see WoW as THE MMORPG. That assumes a lot. I don't think WoW has sold more because it's happened into it. It's the most popular because, when push comes to shove, it's better. At least, it's better if better means a huge game world that is remarkably stable and accessible to wide variety of players. ...But it's a stretch to say folks think, "Hmm, I want an MMORPG and WoW is the best one." They don't. Some folks are looking for MMORPGs for their own sake, but the setting and the quality of the product will still be the deciding factor. SWG undoubtedly would have done better if the product had been better. ...And, as a WoWer, I'll tell you that I'm jonsin' for a different game with a better setting. I find the WoW backstory and universe lackluster. ...But WoW is generally stable, fairly easy to learn, and has a large variety of things to appeal to the customer. I'll give you a prime example. I ran out and purchased the Warhammer Online game the second I knew it was on the market. I don't regret buying it, but I've already cancelled my subscription. Why? Not because I like WoW's setting or because I figured I'd stick with whichever MMORPG happened to be on top at the time. I stayed with WoW because I could sign on and play without the game crashing every ten minutes... and taking my internet connection with it. If a good MMORPG hits the shelves that attracts a significant online following, they will drag customers away from WoW, but don't make the mistake of thinking that there isn't room for the MMORPG market to grow. If you don't make that stupid mistake, I won't sound the alarm that the market can only grow at the expense of the single player RPG market, which probably isn't true at this point.

try the first 100 years of US history. the value of the dollar actually increased. booms and busts did not begin until we began to regulate the economy. did you forget about that? I find it strange that I'm defending Enoch on this. First of all, he seems like the kind of guy who doesn't need my clusmy defense. I passed over that hurdle by wanting to talk. Second of all, I'm an unabashed capitalist. I guess I'm just not a true free market capitalist. ...Or maybe I should say if I'm going to die chargin the baricade, it's not at that particular barricade where I choose to die. The reason I agree with Enoch on this issue isn't because I favor more government interference. I just prefer reasonable and pragmatic arguments and there's no chance in hell of going to the system you suggest, taks. I don't believe it is possible. As regards this specific problem, however, I think the ascendency of the United States was one of those outside factors you point out earlier and Enoch discusses. There's simply no realistic way to compare the set of circumstances facing the country during the first hundred years compared to the circumstances facing the country during the next hundred. What about number of states? What about foreign markets? Rampant expansion during the first hundred years cries out for the argument of outside influences. I dunno. Enoch can give you one of his erudite responses. On it's face, this particular example seems bunk. ...But, lest I get off topic, your position is not supported in this election. I seriously doubt it will be supported in any election any time soon. So, while I favor the free market approach, I want to focus on attainable goals. At least, I want to focus on candidates who are closet to my position.

SWG fall under the example of how a lot of companies lost money hitting the MMO model without realizing how much it costs to run one. I think MMOs have reached a point where they're still expensive to maintain, but it's getting easier. There's a reason why so many companies are trying to get into the MMO game. It can't be chance. They see an opportunity for profit. I wonder how that new Fallout MMO is going to be. hahahahahaha

that would be an insult to mediocre lawyers everywhere. a half-blind donkey with a learning impairment could point out the flaws in that sham of a case. hahahahaha EDIT: Ooops, I agree. The case sounds ridiculous. Didn't want to post without actually making a comment. hahahahaha That was funny You know, none of these cases has actually revolved around anything done entirely online. Every one of them has had a real life component.

I'm sure you can comment on her statement, Meshugger, but I don't see why you would unless you're going to comment on the many factual errors Biden has made. I believe, more than any other presidential campaign during my lifetime, that the press is unquestionably biased to support one of the candidates. That's true of Obama over McCain. That's even more apparent in the treatment Palin receives in comparison to Biden. Look, I don't hate Biden. He's a good speaker and he's engaging and I'm sure I'd love to sit down and have a beer with the guy. ...But he never shuts up and makes some of the most profoundly stupid comments I've heard out of any of the four candidates. For the press to pound Palin and ignore Biden the way they do is absolutely shameful. I would say that Palin wasn't my pick, except that then folks would think I was ashamed of her candidacy. Frankly, I'm not. She's not a terrible candidate. She's a mediocre candidate who's received some terrible treatment. The claims against her, those which aren't outright lies, tend toward hyperbole. Now, she's said some dumb things and I don't share a lot of her core beliefs, but it's ridiculous that the press has managed to get away with the type of coverage we've seen in this election. ...And I watch and read a variety of sources, from the New York Times to the Washington Post to Fox News to MSNBC. Palin's comments regarding the role of the Vice President, you may be suprised to know, fairly mimic Adam's own views while he was vice president. Namely, that the vice president should engage in debate with the senators. Adam's tried to act as part of the legislature during his early days as Vice President but was soon shuffled aside. Biden, on the other hand, stated factual errors regarding the constitution during the debate and received an absolute pass. Ridiculous. ...And folks from other countries see this crap on the news and buy it hook, line, and sinker. Listen, if you don't like Palin's policy stance, fine. If you think she's dumb and doesn't know what she's doing, fine. Just try to come to these views based on reality and the press ain't providing that reality right now. Palin would not be my choice for either President or Vice President. On the other hand, for the first time in my adult life, I don't have a solid reason to vote for any of the candidates, so Palin has a lot of company. EDIT: Sorry, I was responding to Meshugger's post but taks post before me.

Education under Bush has seen a significant increase in spending, which goes against the idea that Republicans turn a cold eye to domestic spending. Damn, Republicans have gone hog wild on spending, especially during the Bush administration. I think that spending increase is wrong. I think the No Child Left Behind law is wrong. ...But, hey, the Democrats really don't have the right to complain about it since they had a pretty significant role in crafting the legislation. I agree with taks whole heartedly as regards the teachers' unions. Apart from my general distrust, I have very specific problems with them. For example, the teachers union in California (CTA) opposes Prop 8. For those of you who don't know, Prop 8 changes the California constitution to define legal marriages as between one man and one woman. Why the hell does the teachers union support or oppose such a measure? What does this have to do with education? At best, the CTA could point to some of the tactics the prop 8 proponents use, but the underlying issue is not related to education in any way. I voted against the earlier proposition on the grounds that it was discriminatory, but I am voting for this proposition because the California Supreme Court overturned the earlier proposal. The people of the state should have the final word. The California Supreme Court, in a most cynical way, used their power on the bench to legislate. It's more important to me that the Supreme Court of California be put in its place than gay people get the right to marry. Frankly, I think they should have the right, but I had my say on the issue in the form of a vote. My side lost. Just like I will accept and support whoever wins the election for president, I support the decision of the majority in regards to marriage. This is not the equivalent of denying the right to marry between people based on race, religion, or ethnicity. If I saw the denial of same sex marriage as a grave offense to human rights, then I would not support the majority. It's merely an offense, but not a grave one. We can hope that future generations see it as such and change their stance. More important than providing this right to homosexual couples is asserting the power of the people of the state. We should not cringe before the bench and the bench should not impose its will like a pantheon of gods looking down from Mount Olympos. Oh, hell, why not enjoy the pie in the sky debate? As far as strict capitalism goes, Enoch has it right. We won't have it at all. No matter what will yield the best result in the long run, each generation will do what suits its purposes at the time. This is why I rail so much against arguments that rely too heavily on theoretical models. Folks just won't abide conditions necessary for these models to succeed. The best either side can do is hope that some of their central theme gets through and friendly policies prevail. I've taken this to be Enoch's essential argument. If not, apologies.

I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen crpgs evolve quite a bit from what they were when I first started playing them anyhow. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I think the current trend is to MMOs. Actually, I think the trend was to MMOs, but folks saw how difficult they were to create and manage. Now, these developers have learned and MMOs are getting easier to manage and the fanbase is getting to be accustomed to the peculiar problems such as connectivity and the like. For that reason, I see more developers, particularly ones who have the funding, looking to the MMO model. Look, my intention isn't to be alarmist. Even if the MMO model keeps picking up steam, what you and crashgirl have said remains true. There are single player RPGs in development and the market will inevitably hit a saturation point. I just see the current trend as playing out over time to the point where single player rpgs will be forced to play more to their strengths. I see the story as the primary advantage, perhaps the only advantage, single player games have over MMOs. Hell, I'm not even bashing MMOs. I'm a huge MMO fan. I'm just as much a standard CRPG fan. ...But I think the biggest restraint on MMOs to date has been capital and technology. As technology advances and the model proves increasingly profitable, more developers are going to make that move. If single player role playing games don't do something to differentiate themselves, then it might see itself more and more defined as a subcategory. Less investment in such games will simply mean fewer of them. No panic, though. I freely admit I'm making a lot of assumptions and a few broad leaps there. I guess I was just more putting forth in the discussion than making hard fast predictions.

I might get Far Cry 2. I liked STALKER quite a bit.

Ooooh. Hmm. I think I'll pass for now. Ugh. Thanks for the heads up, Calax.

What this tells me is that, as these companies iron out the kinks, that anyone with sufficient cash will switch to MMO models. They've given up on trying to differentiate themselves by tighter stories, probably figuring that folks who really like the story elements will be able to pick out good stories from the background and the rest can just quest for better gear, new abilities, and better stats. This isn't bad or good news, but I do see MMOs as taking a bigger slice of the RPG pie. This can be bad if it results in the death of single player RPG titles. It can also be good if it shakes out the lightweights and forces the survivors to craft superior stories. As long as RPGs continue to shift to multi-player content, often resulting in games that fail to focus sufficiently on either single or multi player gameplay, then RPGs will continue to trade away their best asset (tighter control of the story). I'm ambivalent in regards to the announcement. It's not that I don't think it's important. On the contrary, it's extremely important news for one of my favorite computer game categories. I'm unsure of how to take the news because it could be good or bad. It might spell a further decline in single player RPG titles or it might bolster the more creative of the developers to respond with more quality products.

What do you think, Karka? Is Full Spectrum Warrior a good FPS? Is it PC? How does it compare in terms of difficulty to Call of Duty 4? I need a good FPS fix. Medium difficulty and maybe a decent back story sounds good.

Double Post Alert! By chance, the next random song out of hundreds was: Wish You Were Here -- Pink Floyd Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil Do you think you can tell?

Hmm, Guns N Roses? I might have to look into that. Sweet Child o' Mine has been a bit over exposed, but I was a big fan of them then and I still like their music. ...Even Sweet Child o' Mine. Two Suns in the Sunset -- Pink Floyd

See, the part of this crap that you guys are all missing (that I haven't, seeing as I live in Holland where this has gotten quite a bit of coverage) is that these kids forced the other kid to come home with them, type in his personal information and send it over under threat of violence. They may have gotten it on a bogus charge, but I can't say I wish they hadn't been charged. Well, good Lord! That's a game changer. If they physically forced the kid to do something, then they got what they deserved. In my opinion, public service is not an excessive punishment anyhow. I've done a lot of public service as a volunteer that some folks have been forced to do as punishment. Give me a break. If performing physical labor makes for punishment, then our whole lives are punishment. A couple of punks losing some hours being forced to help out the community by picking up trash or the like is not an outrage. Now, if it were truly virtual, as in the entirity of the crime took place online, then I would certainly be a bit more sceptical.

"But this is all wishy-washy utopia stuff. We can might as well discuss the merits of communism while we're at it." Hahahahaha I thought this was funny. I take issue with one thing Enoch said. Maxism is a much more fluid term than fascism. While we might pretend that terms such as marxism and socialism have a cut and dried meaning, that's not how their used. Even Marxism has ceased being a term people use based solely on Marx' works. Socialism does not have the same stigma attached to it as fascism. Even communism does not, although it certainly aspires to the same level of loathing in some quarters. My point is, folks throw around words like Socialism as if they have no meaning and thus undermine the definition in the first place. Now, folks also do that with fascism, to be sure. But equating every Republican with Hitler and the nazis hasn't really changed the meaning, only reinforced the negative impact of the word. I don't think Obama is a socialist. I don't believe he truly feels as if he's a socialist and he doesn't view his policies as such either. However, he does move closer to the socialist model, no matter which common use we take for the term. For that reason, I don't think that it's altogether clever to make the claim that he's a socialist. It's simply a statement regarding the difference between the two candidates. ...And, to be frank, I don't give a damn about the pie in the sky arguments on a theoretical level. We've got two choices for an election taking place in two weeks. I don't care about a mental experiment regarding true free markets as opposed to marxist doctrine. Obama is a move toward socialism (albeit a long ways off even for him) and McCain is marginally less so.

Damn, the various vamps have different digs? Good Lord, man, why didn't you tell me sooner!

Modern Love -- David Bowie

I hate to burst your bubble, Jaguar, but not all Gamespots sell PC games. Wait, maybe I'm really not bursting your bubble. I didn't think they did, but I don't usually shop at them. I went to Frys Yesterday with a gift card in my wallet. Sadly, I left the same way. I never took out the gift card because I just didn't see anything that caught my eye. I desperately want a new FPS, but Dead Space looked a bit lackluster to me. I probably would have bought it, but I didn't see it. I almost[b/] bought Prey, I carried Hellgate London around a bit thinking to buy it. I even had a third title to hand ready to purchase, but I balked at spending even $19+tax on those titles. I guess I wasn't in a buying mood. HA! With the way my mind works, I'll end up buying an Xbox 360. As it stands, I'm holding out for Fallout 3. So, I guess it's LotRO and WoW for the time being.

Hell, like I can get them to understand about BoP items. I mean, they understand the idea in theory, but they don't read it. I still, STILL have folks tell me that they'll trade an item that drops off a boss. On the other hand, we really are a guild that's in it together. Unlike you guys, I think I've had three deaths since the patch and quite a number of honorable kills. I won't count defending Velen, since that was a big group effort, but the folks I smote in Southshore were at no disadvantage. Turns out sometimes the horde buys into it's own hype. I like being a hype killer. Of course, I'll turn forty before long, my reflexes will go down hill, and then some rat bastard teenager will start pwning me. Oh well, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Unlike real life, characters don't end up in the hospital. What I really like is that going into an instance turns off flagged status now. That's why I like PvP realms. Not because I like PvP, but it simply cuts out the bullcrap. You go into a new area, you're fair game. Either you can put paid to the other guy, or you avoid him. None of this being mindlessly griefed. They are out to get you and you either run or get them first. My guild would have quit playing in a PvP realm already. That's what I liked about Warhammer. On that RvR server, there was no doubt. Go find someone to kill. I would like to play more Warhammer, but it just doesn't work. With all the good ideas, it crashes or hangs on me constantly and I just don't want to waste the time or money on a product that I can't use. Not only that, but waiting for a scenario (battleground) or searching for Destruction players turned out to be a chore. The wait on scenarios is horrible. Here's something odd, Order was always winning whereever I played. I figured it would be different. Maybe because I only played High Elves (I'm sure you could guess), but Destruction lost five of the six scenarios I played and the lands were often under Order control or contested and virtually never under Destruction control.

Actually, as someone who comes at it from a different viewpoint, I think you put your case very well in a short space, Killian. I think policy changes will make a difference in our lives, but I don't think there will be drastic policy changes no matter which candidate wins. However, I fear dramatic policy changes that might pass in a filibuster-proof senate and house under complete Democratic domination. This is the firts election in a long time that I'm not voting for someone. I'm voting against Obama on the following grounds: 1) While both candidates are offerering substantial spending, Obama is far worse and I suspect that his spending increase will be even more significant than he currently states. 2) I don't believe Obama's tax plan will have any chance of succeeding with his current spending proposals. Even though he shies away from the term "socialized healthcare," I believe he wants to move us radically toward that goal. 3) I don't favor banning abortions, but I disagree with the idea of sponsoring abortions as a matter of public policy. If it is truly a woman's choice, then it should certainly be her responsability. If we do not socialize healthcare, and I fervently hope we do not, then I don't see why the governtment should be concerned about the issue any more than other medical procedures. 4) I simply disagree with the notion that people who do not pay income tax can receive a tax break. Obama's claim regarding the payroll, sales, and other taxes is simply political double-speak.

I might replay Bloodlines again. I really do think it was the Troika game that lived up to the hype.

I played it on my PC, but the DX10 graphics were quite pretty. I think the voice over work and art direction really were all that and a bag of chips. It's good to be able to give honest praise toa game and nice to see folks give it unreservedly. So, even with all the warts, I imagine I'm going to buy Bioshock 2. I just REALLY hope they add monster variety and maybe tone down the respawns. I don't care if they make combat a lot harder, as long as they make travel less tedious.

I've been playing wow with folks tonight. I'm throwing in the towel on Warhammer. If I did the usual bitter tirade, I'd call it a steaming pile of human crap. However, resisting the impulse to nerd rage, I will simply say I won't pay for a game that hangs, crashes, or corrupts constantly, taking my internet connection with it until I reboot my system. Good idea; beautiful graphics; wonderful Warhammer universe; cancelled subscription.