Oblarg

Wow. This sentence really proves some people take a random piece of old legislation too seriously. This sounds like something Obama would say. The Constitution is a bit more than a 'random piece of old legislation'. It certainly is for most Americans anyway (the ones that aren't ruining the country anyway). Oh come on, I doubt obama would **** all over the constitution in that manner. That said, I don't like the implication that the constitution is divinely inspired - to me, that's just as dangerous as disregarding it altogether. America is not a theocracy.

I agree... Also, I don't really understand those who say standard shooting is completely hopeless. Are you using a weapon you have no skill in on the hardest difficulty? Max your pistol skill, and try to spam a few shots at a nearby enemy. You'll be lucky if you scratch him.

Here's the thing - with twitch aiming, people expect their shots to go where the reticle is pointed. Yes, fully aimed crits always hit, but really on a pistol those didn't become practical until you reached the higher skill levels. I said "can be frustratingly hard," and it certainly can if you go into the game expecting the shooting to play out like a standard shooter, and consequently not hit a damn thing. Now before you all jump down my throats about "well, it's an RPG, not a shooter," I personally think the shooting in AP worked fine once you got used to the system and got your weapon skill up. That said, the scaling with weapon skill was pretty wonky (abysmally bad accuracy and short range in the beginning, pinpoint accuracy and nearly unlimited range by the end), the close-range weapons (SMG, shotgun) simply didn't work too well because the level design didn't really accommodate players who wanted to only use them, and the RNG versus twitch aiming balance overall was not as good as it could have been. The "wait for aim to narrow before shooting" mechanic worked fine once you got used to it, but the balance of crit versus noncrit was so bad (especially for pistol) that you could spray an entire clip at a point blank foe and barely do any damage. That's not a good system. I appreciate the idea behind the crits, but standard shooting must be viable, or at least not completely hopeless, if you want a smooth system.

I play infiltrator, even though I really dislike the class mechanics, because I love the idea behind it (tech-savvy sniper, **** yeah). The sniping is so ****ing dumb in ME that it doesn't work too well, and tech powers went from generic explosions in ME1 to colored missiles in ME2. I also play a vanguard with an assault rifle, but as biotics were nerfed to hell in ME2 it lost a lot of the satisfaction that it had in ME1.

Just saw The Room. Not really sure what to say that can do it justice. Easily the worst film I've ever seen. "EVERYBODY BETRAY ME, I FED UP WITH THIS WORLD"

Lack of DLC is anything but upsetting. DLC is a ****ing scam.

The problem with action RPGs is that RPG mechanics and twitch aiming are inherently incompatible, because they are two different ways of determining the same thing (i.e. whether or not your bullet hits the target). If you require perfect twitch aiming and throw RNG on top of that (AP) you end up with something that can be frustratingly hard. If you tune down the twitch aiming with auto-aim and rely more on the stats and RNG you end up with shooting that feels clunky and superfluous (ME1). If you throw out the RNG and rely entirely on twitch aiming you get something which unsurprisingly doesn't feel like an RPG (ME2). It's a tough balance to nail. I don't think AP was terribly far off the ideal balance, but there is certainly lots of room for improvement. Really, I think the only way to get it right is to test lots and lots of different systems.

I think following the constitution strictly would be a lot more practical if it were more easily amended. As it is, amendments are few and far-between, and it's very hard for a document penned in the late 1700s to remain a practical basis for a government if it were strictly interpreted, given how little it changes. The extent to which this is true is debatable, but you cannot deny that changing circumstances must be reflected in our government. Now, I'm not one to advocate overwhelming gun control, but look at the second amendment - it is a perfect example of an antiquated bit of lawmaking, and one that would have some rather undesirable consequences if it were strictly upheld.

Well, I'm impressed, this has not devolved into a flamewar.

I saw all three of your versions. Really, if nitpicking grammatical error is the only response you have, why respond at all. We're not in English class here. ...and I never said my political/voting stances/decisions were easy for me. It took me a while to decide whether or not I should nitpick the grammar, but the compulsive side of me won out in the end. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Really, people, if you don't know the difference between who and whom, just don't use the latter.

He's not the player avatar of the entire series, and just because segment of his backstory could have gone multiple ways is not a reason to make the rest of his backstory dull and insipid. It's already ****ed up for anyone who had a dark side Revan, anyway.

Whose? The SW:TOR website. BioWare's. Hm, can't find it. Mentioned in the timeline trailers? Nah, it was mentioned in the old setting descriptions, and was the only think back when the site first opened that really annoyed me. Not sure if it's around anymore.

This type of thinking leads to bad games.

Whose? The SW:TOR website. BioWare's. It certainly makes Revan a more interesting character than a simple "war made him evil, so he attacked the republic" or the newly revised "he ran into some superbadguys after the war who turned him evil." Especially if you take into account that Revan never purely limited himself to Jedi ideals and believed strongly in "strength through conflict." If Revan's motives were purely evil, he wouldn't have left all the infrastructure intact on planets he conquered - even GOTO notes that Revan's actions indicate that he wasn't willing to use the Star Forge forever. That wouldn't be a problem for him if he had completely fallen. It wasn't a problem for Malak.

The Old Republic comic from Dark Horse establishes that Revan & Malak were made lapdogs of the Sith Emperor and were sent back to Republic space to prepare the return of the Sith. About time he fell off his pedestal, anyway. Wookieepedia confirms this, and it pretty much robs the KotOR backstory of any depth it had. Gone is the Revan who had sympathizeable motivations. I guess BioWare is too good for things like character depth. What a pity. I think discounting Kreia as having lied or being mistaken about Revan is a copout - the story gains much more from Kreia being correct, and there's absolutely no doubt that she was intended to be correct (as Kreia's entire character was sort of a voice for Chris Avellone's views on the star wars universe). Unfortunately, it sort of blurs the "light side good, dark side bad" dogma, which may ultimately be why BioWare is going to ignore it. Kreia's lines are certainly pretty strongly worded: "...perhaps Revan never fell. The difference between a fall and a sacrifice is sometimes difficult, but I feel that Revan understood that difference, more than anyone knew. The galaxy would have fallen if Revan had not gone to war. Perhaps he became the dark lord out of necessity, to prevent a greater evil." Sure, there is a lot of conjecture in there, but several things are stated in absolutes ("The galaxy would have fallen if Revan had not gone to war...") and in the context of the game I think it's overwhelmingly obvious this is intended to add depth to Revan's character for a (now non-existent) sequel. Though, if you read through their website, they also portray Kreia as a one-dimensional villain with no motivations outside of hating the force, which is pretty insulting to the character's writing. It's clear if you read the dialogue that Kreia's actions are mainly driven by her desire to preserve, train, and test the Exile. She even describes her own actions at the end of the game as a manner of "final test."

This. And I'm not a republican. Give me legitimate sources or gtfo.

OK, I see this quote misinterpreted at least a couple of times in this thread. Obviously he doesn't literally want a government that governs least, since that would be anarchy. What he means is he wants a government that uses the least possible amount of coercion to still achieve the functions that the government properly has, such as provide for common security and rule of law. That's a lot more reasonable, but that's not really an argument for an unconditionally small government, either. The quote would probable be misinterpreted less if people stopped presenting it as such.

So, after watching In The Loop (which was easily the funniest movie I've seen in years), I felt the need to watch the TV series off which it was based. And I must say, why the **** aren't there any TV programs this hilarious in the US? This is absolutely superb.

I thought that was decided after it was announced it was going to be an MMO? They didn't have to completely retcon all the interesting things KotOR2 added to the series simply because it's an MMO, though. It's as if BioWare honestly tries to make their characters one-dimensional.

So, I only just now bothered to go and see how badly BioWare has shat all over all of the depth KotOR2 added to the KotOR backstory, and I'm genuinely pissed off about it. Apparently, according to BioWare, we should ignore all of the hints Kreia dropped about Revan having greater things in mind - no, he simply ran into the "real" bad guy and was consequently corrupted. How ****ing original and inspired! What a waste of a perfectly good series.

I imagine so, especially when these authority figures have opinions you disagree with or cannot refute. I never said you were arguing for unlimited government but once you begin empowering government to do things it was never meant to do, that is exactly what you will get. As for your second point, you adn I just disagree and probably always will. There is nothing wrong with that. Define what government is "meant to do," then. I think you'll find it's not as clear-cut as you think. You haven't given me any reason to respect the opinions of these authority figures. An opinion is an opinion. I need concrete evidence, not someone's beliefs, no matter how powerful and influential the person.

Jesus F*****G Christ? You actually think someone living their life as they see fit is anarchy. Are you even familiar with the definition if that word? I am. I saw it first hand in Somalia in 1993 and Kuwaitt in 1991. All I did was take your definition of freedom to its logical conclusion. After all, anarchy would indeed be the minimum amount of government interference. Your view of freedom, as you stated it, is by definition incompatible with the concept of government. If you want to reword it, go right ahead. That is the same BS you pulled earlier. If I am opposed to one extreme then I must be in favor of the other extreme You very clearly made it an extreme in your definition. You claimed that minimal government interference is freedom. Minimal is an extreme. You might want to reword that.

If it is smaller then it imperfections are less harmful. Ford said it the best: "The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have." And one of my favorites, Thomas Paine wrote: "That government is best which governs least." I absolutely hate it when people present quotes from authority figures as if they're immutable truths. The least possible governing government is anarchy. Is anarchy the best government? I am not arguing for unrestricted government. I do not think that minimizing government will solve our society's problems. Not at all.

Jesus F*****G Christ? You actually think someone living their life as they see fit is anarchy. Are you even familiar with the definition if that word? I am. I saw it first hand in Somalia in 1993 and Kuwaitt in 1991. All I did was take your definition of freedom to its logical conclusion. After all, anarchy would indeed be the minimum amount of government interference. Your view of freedom, as you stated it, is by definition incompatible with the concept of government. If you want to reword it, go right ahead.