Epirote

While I didn't know him, best of luck, from me too. Does anyone round here know and may disclose, if he did any work for NWN2?

No Planescape: Torment? No Quest for Glory? No Deus Ex or Vampire: Bloodlines or Wizardry or Ultima or Knights of the Old Republic or BioShock or Diablo or World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy or Arcanum or Fallout or Elder Scrolls? I mean, your list is your list, but it's strange that the top RPGs are all set in the Forgotten Realms and were made by 2 different companies. Nope, sorry, back then money was scarce and gaming was limited to playing demos for me. For a while at least ... I played most of them as demos. I remember a King's Quest by Sierra or some such, being my first full paid game. And to explain my choice, BG1 was my first real RPG and I did not like BG2 at all, for silly and personal reasons. At first coming from BG1 to NWN1, I thought the latter was silly game! Resting everywhere! Not to mention breaking and entering: "Excuse me, coming through to the loot!" ah well .... 2nd place: Although I hate the Spirit Eater Curse and the whole mechanic and all ... I still can objectively judge that this is a great expansion to an excellent OC. 3rd place: HotU was great! :D 4th place: most finished and most played recently, the "infamous" OC. 5th place: Surprise! Surprise! I hated SoZ at first, but it grew on me and my only complaint is that it crashes a lot on me. Well sometimes it crashes like on every second transition to the OM and sometimes I can play 2 hours straight before it crashes. Anyways, it's a great game, too. 6th place: kind of selfexplanatory! Nah, I loved the NWN OC, played it alot and with a lot of different characters. 7th place: SoU - nah, I hated SoU at first and before it had a real chance to really grow on me, HotU arrived. 8. Flop of the Century: BG2, nope, didn't do it for me. Sorry! *ducks to avoid incoming*

NWN was an epic failure in story to the point it was duller than a spoon. The devs focused too much on the play on aspect and being able to make your own dungeons and such that they gave the story of the single player game a back seat. Best RPG ever: 1. BG 1 2. NWN 2: Mask of the Betrayer 3. NWN: HotU 4. NWN 2 OC 5. NWN 2: SoZ 6. NWN OC 7. NWN: SoU] 8. BG 2 Not a fact, just my personal opinion on the matter. o:)

Always! R.I.P. Amen! :good: No, can't say that I bought their games; back then, money was scarce and I somehow missed them.

Maybe this will help: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/for...f=10&t=3032

interests me a lot: what's the cleanest way of setting up such a machine? I'm going to have a similar setup soon, with the exception of Vista, which will be Win 7. 1. install the oldest MS OS, in my case XP 2. then install the newest MS OS, in my case Vista 3. install Ubuntu. If you don't want Ubuntu's bootloader to take over everything, there is an option towards the end of the installation of Ubuntu to install it's bootloader to its own native partition rather than to the MBR. Then use EasyBCD (freeware) from within Win 7 to add it's boot entry to the Win 7 bootloader. In any case, do some research first; google tripple boot XP Win7 Ubuntu, for example. Regarding open source, it matters to me, because even if I don't have the knowledge to alter anything, there is plenty of people out there worldwide who do and thus contribute to the improvement of any open source project. Concerning drivers, the point was that in Ubuntu you don't need to install any drivers, except for graphics card. And yes, I know that Windows Update has a driver section, but to access it, you have to first install network drivers, whereas in Ubuntu you have instant internet access as soon as the installation finishes and you reboot the machine. And concerning bundled software and double standards, I never accused MS of anything; their competitor's did.

Ubuntu rocks! And no, I'm not a linux zealot. I'm your average power user running a tripple boot system (Ubuntu 8.10 64-bit, Vista 64-bit, XP Pro 32-bit). All three have their weaknesses and their strong points. However, it is my experience and my firm belief that Ubuntu is far superior to any MS OS. And here's why: 1.It's free and it's OpenSource. 2.It's more stable than a MS OS (I did not have a CTD or BsoD in Ubuntu yet. I wonder why that is?) 3.No driver installation required. Exception: graphics card drivers, but even in this case Ubuntu is superior, since it properly recognizes your graphics card and offers to download and install the latest drivers, without you having to visit the manufacturer's site). But the most important part is that it doesn't require any network drivers installation. Once you install Ubuntu and boot to desktop, you are instantly connected to the internet. 4.Bootable live CD that does not just boot you to an interface that allows you to install or repair the OS, as MS OS do, but boots you to a fully functional desktop, as if the OS was fully installed with instant internet access, though -understandably- the OS runs at much lower speed, compared to a full installation. This allows you, for example, to troubleshoot boot problems with any OS, before you resort to reinstalling, or to download missing drivers for Windows. I did not have a mb driver disc with my previous machine, so after reinstalling XP for example I would have a lot of unknown devices in device manager, including the network cards. So, I just booted from the Ubuntu CD, downloaded the drivers and I was good to go. 5.Hardware replacement or upgrades don't affect the OS. And I'm not talking about having to reactivate Windows, whenever you as much as swap out a RAM module, for example. A couple of months back, I decided to upgrade my machine, which meant a new motherboard, new CPU and new RAM. I also decided to do it without format and reinstall everything. So, for Windows I had to repair windows afterwards, load all drivers, then delete all ghost devices in device manager left over from the previous machine setup. In Ubuntu all I had to do was boot up (took a tiny bit longer than usual, but once the desktop came up, everything was usable as before. No further action required on my part.) 6.Partitions: an MS OS only sees and can work with it's own native partitions; Ubuntu sees and can work with all partitions. 7.Bundled software, incl. Games: Ubuntu comes bundled with a full Office Suite and other software, incl. simple games. Where a MS OS, has two or three Solitaire games, for example, Ubuntu has a full Solitaire Suite. 8.Flexibility: it is very easy to change a Ubuntu installation to some other linux platform (Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Xubuntu, you name it) by just downloading the appropriate files and installing them. Imagine, for example, XP Home to XP Pro upgrade, simply by downloading required files and installing them. In conclusion, the only thing that keeps me from ditching all MS OS in favor of Ubuntu is my love for games that require DX. But it's not Ubuntu's fault, that the gaming industry has bowed down to MS and develops PC games almost exclusively for that platform.

Death, both on a personal level, and as in death in the family.

Logic is governed by the rules of the respective scientific discipline. doh Facts, have to be examined, as to whether they are real facts or propaganda lies. doh Good one, thanks for making my day. I'm ROFLMAO. I abide by the rules of logic as outlined in the respective scientific discipline. Mostly anyways. And again: there are facts; and there are mass media propaganda lies. The so called fact that the former Secretary of State presented to the UN to get an alliance of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was a fabricated propaganda lie. Proof: no WoMD have been found since the start of the invasion in Iraq. And that's a widely accepted fact internationally. Yes, you have to take my word for it. or you could google the whole thing and form your own opinion. Hey, what's worse than ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care. And yes, that was a sarcastic remark. Seriously though, it is an internationally widely accepted fact that fanatical religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida. I've seen even the BBC report about it, if I'm not mistaken. And if I find the time, I'll be glad to provide you a link. I don't doubt for a minute that Saddam was a ruthless dictator. I just question why it was so important to get rid of Saddam, when there are numerous other ruthless dictators around with or without the potential to endanger the security of the US. That's one question you dodge repeatedly. I'm as rational as your next neighbour, or your next forum member here. I was educated in German High School, and there was a big focus on rational and critical thinking. Something you obviously lack. *plonk* Sorry, about that. Again, just so you get it into your thick head. There is terrorism in Iraq, which has no regards to civilian casualties, and which is condemnable. The invader is an invading army or more precisely a coalition of allied forces. That's a fact, no way around that. Everything else is bending logical definitions. Yeah, whatever you say ... *plonk* To impose economic sanctions you will need to employ diplomacy. Am I right or am I wrong? And if you are implying that I am a propaganda drone, you have proved for all to see that you are not capable of having a civil and rational discussion on a www forum. I feel sorry for you. It seems the blindfolds, of which you accuse me wearing them, are fastened tight to your face. End of line for now.

Not the logic and facts of a war supporter, no, sorry won't work ... I don't see why I have to bend to your logic and your (mostly fabricated) facts ... sorry, no can do. Yeah, jeez. Now explain Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to me. Trust me, for an invaded country and its people it doesn't matter much who the invader is. Go ask an Iraqi who has lost all his family due to indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilian areas and report back what he will tell you. Against the invader, simple as that. If you believe the invaders are liberators and should be greeted with open arms, it's your right to do so, but don't go demanding that everybody should share it and embrace it as the ultimate truth. When countries negotiate, they usually sign legal binding contracts at the end of them. It is nevertheless undeniable that this is a case where diplomacy did work and the US got what they wanted, at least that's my take on it. You are welcome to disagree. I agree that it is the civilian population that suffers most from economic sanctions. The trick is to make the population rally against its incompetent government instead. Right, yeah, and all that preemptive strike crap alongside that ... And I have to take your word for it, right? You, of course, as the Grandmaster of Logic and Facts don't have to prove anything; you can claim things and expect them to be accepted as the universal, undeniable truth. Doesn't change the fact that an unauthorized police act like that still constitutes legally a casus belli. I'm pretty sure that if the same thing had happened in Greek territory, but by let's say Russian military forces, we would loudly protest and consider it a casus belli. We wouldn't go to war with Russia of course, but we definitely would bring the matter to the UN. ... which you actually haven't proved; we [there is no we!] must actually take your word for that ... It's a well known fact of world politics that terrorists and rebel, "revolutionary" armies don't concern themselves to comply with the Geneva Conventions on Conduct during War. Any civilized country and its army, however, should sign said conventions and abide by them. Again explain the toleration of fanatic religious schools in Pakistan, whereas it is a known fact that these religious schools are recruiting ground no. 1 for Al Qaida and other militant muslim organizations. And boy, do they have a repressive dictator governing them, but I forget, he is a friendly one, he gives the US exactly what it wants.

If it's a game to you, I pity you. May be, randoomn00b just fell into a logical treap, there. May be this reference was there, to provoke this exact answer. And no I don't feel squashed. And it's not a game nor a competition for me. It's a hopefully civil exchange of opinions on an issue of world politics.

Sorry, my bad, I just assummed they had, by looking at my boxes, since there name was listed first.

You sure about that, bub? How about policing their own territory and making sure the US have no reason to cross over and make a mess? Oh wait, I forgot. The US weren't really after terrorists - they were bombing towns indiscriminately, for fun. My bad. I'm not your bub, ok? sheesh And no, your bad is that you put words in my mouth that I did not say in the context of the attack on Syrian soil. Smear tactics don't work on me ... neither do flamebaits ... And on the policing matter, how come the US don't make the same demands on countries like Germany, after all some the 9/11 terrorists started out from that country? I don't know where you're from, but I don't recall any instances of insurgency causing hundreds of civilian casualties by targeting markets during rush hour, in WW2. Might be wrong, though. But even if they were, not only were they terrorists, they were a bunch of cowardly douchebags. edit: just realized you're probably Greek. For some odd reason I was under the impression that you were Argentinian... Would it have mattered, if I were Argentinian? And yes, that's the difference between resistance and terrorism. Doesn't change the fact that to the occupying forces back then all resistance fighters were terrorists. Much the same as in Iraq today ... I agree with you though that there is a lot of terrorist activity in Iraq and most of it is condemnable, because it has no regards for civilian lives. However, there is also a lot of genuine resistance activity and it gets labeled as terrorism. What, you mean how Iraq was sanctioned to the point where the "Food for Oil" programme had to be enacted to prevent a mass famine - and even now nobody's quite clear on what exactly did Saddam do with it? Yeah, that approach works real good. As I said: seems to have worked in the case of North Korea. Of course, you fail to even address that, because it is enconvient, may be? Or the security of another's. Agreed, though I fail to see how Syria or Iraq threatens the security of the US as a state. In fact, I don't remember the US ever being invaded and occupied for a prolonged period of time; it's always the other way round. I wonder why that is? The right is given to them by the American people. They have the ability and the duty to protect their country, and their responsibility is first to the US citizenry, and then to the rest of the world, in that order of priority. Sorry if you don't like how things are, but the US isn't an NGO, nor should it be. I never said that the US was or should be an NGO. And far be it from me to deny them the right to protect their people. But there is a difference between defending your country and protecting your people and playing world wide cop. Also, you completely dodged my question on applying double standards, but that's ok. I didn't really expect anything different from you.

Hm, yeah, major turndown and it would be a good reason not to buy games that include this version of SecuROM for me, although I'm currently dual booting Vista64 and XP, so it might not affect me at all. Nevertheless, I agree that this is just one step too far ...

Black Isle developed both Games.