Zoraptor

Yeah, I got three copies of Jack Keane. Actually I did get some completely random indie game I'd never heard of last time they did something similar.

A serious analysis, well OK. 1) None of the Mass Effects are 'proper' RPGs. The character development part was always very very RPG lite. I find little reason to care if what was always primarily a shooter with upgradeable powers remains that way. 1a) Even the conversation based system was never more than RPG lite. There were plenty of forced decisions and 'fake choices' in every game. 1b) The minigames for hacking and the like were, like most minigames, pointless whether it be frogger equivalents or code matching. Don't care when they were there, don't care when they (and associated skills) were removed 2) Bell curve story is accurate. Like most games the end is poor, like many games the beginning is too. 2a) The really bad parts: Deus Ex Machina, Kai ****, Matrix 2 style 'end boss'. 2b) The good parts: Tuchanka, Rannoch in particular. Notably, both were built up very well over all three games of the series 2c) ME2 is to blame for many of ME3's story problems, it didn't do its job as part of a coherent narrative 3) I liked a lot of the misc changes 3a) Can't say I like the change to exploration exactly, but then exploration in ME1 was terrible, and in ME2 boring and repetitive- so ME3's was an improvement. 3b) I did like the incidental overheard missions. 3c) Allers was dumb, Vega was there so new players could get information on prior events since he wasn't there either 3d) Once they changed the requirements I couldn't care less about the MP hooks. 3e) Don't have any more problem with day 1 dlc than with any other, but Javik should not have been dlc, from a story perspective. Overall I'd still rate ME3 highest of the three games. It had the best combat overall which has always been the meat of ME, whatever anyone says. Its story shone when it had been built up properly by the prior titles, but stank when it was newly introduced stuff or retcons. The end was rubbish, but then the ends of both previous games (and most games in general) were hardly stellar either. Mainly though, I've never been a particularly big ME fan and didn't have massive expectations going in.

Their breath weapon is limited to 3/day. (Not actually sure if even the IE games implemented that rule...)

Third Mass Effect is best Mass Effect. Deal with it, h8rs.

Evidence suggests he'll actually go "A+++++ troll. Would read again. Bye". Which at least isn't more sexist than the preceding paternalism was. Unconvinced of that, they appear to be perfectly capable of simply deciding that anyone who disagrees with them must be misguided, malign or misogynist and they certainly do stick to their guns, much as I sometimes wish they wouldn't. Many responses show no worry at all about what people think of them because they're already convinced they're right and those who disagree can safely be disregarded as being wrong. If you're comparing #GG people to ISIS you're not really worried about what people think of you, if you were you'd realise how ludicrous they'd find the comparison- even if it were intended as a joke. That's one of the reasons I compare the typical sjw types to a cult, they aren't even really concerned with what people/ gamers in general think of them but are far more concerned with adhering to their particular dogma and being accepted by their own group. Not a problem unique to sjws though, of course.

Dunno if this dude's a troll, I've seen plenty of people quite seriously espouse hardline Randian/ libertarian ideals without any trolling intent. Completely agree with Monte though, one thing that unifies any and all extreme ideologies is their tendency to implode under their own contradictions when put into 'practice'. But, if all this forum's 'trolls' were the same person I'd seriously suspect that it was Ken Levine trying to get inspiration for the antagonist in his next game. Libertarian, Commie, SJW (OK, technically Jordan Thomas for that one), Nationalist, we just need the Constantine/ Anarchist archetype to complete the set.

Really? I know oby manages to effortlessly troll people (god knows why and how at this point), but do we really want to do that sort of thing, since nobody is going to look good there. What with the Abu Ghraib style "let's photograph ourselves building nudie prisoner pyramids/ urinating on corpses etc etc, what can go wrong?", accusations that Ferguson PD are better protected and armed than units that were in Iraq, complaints about British soldiers having to buy their own bullet proof vests etc etc. Even our own modest little armed forces manages to embarrass itself by having leaked combat and post combat footage that makes them look like a bunch of headless chooks or getting convicted, in court, for sending un(der)qualified pilots out in helicopters they then crashed.

What you need is a good delineation between contracts and projects, which unfortunately nobody really does even when they should. A contract may involve multiple projects, the projects are specific, er, projects or operations like drill long X lat Y; drill long X' lat Y'. Trouble is that people use 'project' interchangeably for both the overall contractual obligations/ operations and for each individual component. And everyone has already admitted that there's one+ projects still ongoing after the cut off date, so disputation there is moot. That Rosneft considers the contract with Exxon still active is primarily relevant to the initial correction I was giving oby, but it has added significance in that any alternative contracts that Rosneft may sign have to take Exxon's stake into account and the find remains a bottom line asset for Exxon- both of which are also 'practical matters', just practical matters that aren't supportive of whatever point it is you're trying to make. So really, you're extending a lot of effort to not actually disagree with me.

Iraq has said multiple times it will not invite US troops (the 'advisers' that are there already notwithstanding) anyway, so the question of boots on ground is moot for Iraq.

Guy on the left looks more Siegfried to me. Don't think that Mr Priestly being at CDProjekt should make any difference (unless it was Jason Priestly and they were going for a 90210 game) as it would not have been him setting the moderation policy at Bioware anyway, he'd just have been enforcing it. Not like the atmosphere over at BSN has changed significantly since Priestly left- not that I really know, I only check it out occasionally. For scientific and research purposes only of course, as a strict policy.

Yeah, so the contract was not cancelled and the project continued (and continues) after the cut off date, ie existing projects are exempt. There are no new projects and no new contracts, but I never said otherwise, indeed I specifically said no new projects. And Rosneft's chief acknowledges that the existing ownership structure- ie Exxon's stake- remains as is. The purpose wasn't to give an overview of the situation in any depth, just to refute oby. Most you can complain about is whether or not it should be project(s) rather than projects, and frankly I can't be bothered checking that.

Forced a policy of no new projects. Existing ones are exempt- obviously- or Exxon would not have been involved up to this point.

Turning popular movements authoritarian is a very old phenomenon, eg the English Civil War, Cromwell turned a theoretically 'democratic' parliamentary revolution into an absolute dictatorship and crapped all over some of his most strident and important supporters- let alone his enemies- as soon as they stepped even slightly out of line because he had control of the army, and the will to use it.

I thought the first ep of Gotham was OK. Too 'bitty' and too many random name drops for it to be good, but that has to be expected in a first episode of that type where there are already a bunch of 'known' characters to establish. Very much an open question as to whether it's going to build on and benefit from the lore and established characters or drown unceremoniously under the weight of the lore and expectations though.

? ? indeed, since Exxon Mobil is Rosneft's partner in that discovery. More like Murica talks the talk about sanctions but won't walk the walk when their economic interests are at stake (Exxon, Boeing, rocket motors for spy satellite launches etc etc), Europeans are ??? as to why they follow what the US preaches but not what it does. US = pragmatic, Europe = stupid.

Listen to yourself, US is not the big satan, it never was. Did bad things happen under the US regime in the past? Of- course. But the good by far outdo the worse. Any attempt to to bash the US by demonizing it is an hypocrite attempt and a blatant release of responsibilities of the same countries who call the US the big satan in the first place, Many of those countries would do a lot better if they start to make the life in their own countries better by actually working to make it better. And let me tells you a secret - Wars are never clean, but wars are sometimes inevitable. Sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right (for your society) and make a stand. Yes, the US was never the great satan in reality, because satan is an abstract religious concept. They did however **** unashamably and repeatedly with Iran in their own narrow interests, inflicting thirty years of the Shah's reactionary, supine totalitarianism on them. Any benefit to the country being intervened in from US intervention is wholly coincidental. Look at the last five interventions done, Kosovo, klepto state whose economy is based on smuggling and having lots of NATO troops stationed there, also utterly illegal*; Afghanistan, basket case though at least it was so before intervention, will go back to civil war; Iraq, went from a country with one of the highest education, best health service and acceptance of women in the ME to a poor, strife torn, semi medieval mess under the tender ministrations of the US; Libya, trashed, went from having one of the best education and health systems to a playground for yet more proxy wars between the absolute monarchs of the gulf; ISIS, unknown but the record is terrible and similar programs in Pakistan and Yemen (two more stellar examples) have failed utterly to fix things at all, they've just undermined the states' authority repeatedly. Libya, Iraq, Syria all had problems before interventions but they also had pretty good- for the region- education, health and policies towards women. They still have the same problems of repression and random brutality that previously existed, to much greater levels since by and large keeping your head down meant you escaped notice and now even that doesn't work, but have also lost the benefits Hussein, Assad and Gaddafi brought with no commensurate gains except some nebulous idea of being free to get blown up by whatever flavour of nutbar militant is currently strutting their stuff. Now sure, for someone from Israel the US is a net good for obvious reasons. If you're in a country which has been the target of one of the US's failed interventions on the other hand you're not going to view them so highly at all. *or rather 'legal' per a friendly ruling, but since Crimea followed the same methodology that's been forgotten as has that the precedent was set by the west.

There's more to it than that- assuming that Watson was not aware that it was a hoax. Dirty tricks is one thing, it's pretty low but not anything all that unexpected. And assuming it gets disseminated widely it's also counter productive when caught out, as it was just about immediately obvious that it was a scam campaign (the Apache info, hundreds of smurf twitter accounts sending identical messages etc) so it was both poorly hidden and near immediately exposed, showing they are incompetent as well as nasty. But, once you start using innocent third parties for your dirty tricks it gets to be a whole new type of low as you're involving them without their consent in something that may have bad repercussions, and making a hoax which may cause significant anxiety and worry to that 3rd party. It's that that should really get them sanctioned. Sheesh, if it really were a GG/ 4chan type doing it there'd be all sorts of accusations of misogyny, rape culture and the like; those accusations are exactly as relevant- if not more so- when it's a false flag attack.

Meh, the SJW crowd is worse at that particular aspect. Both sides shout a lot, and some intimidate, dox etc. But there's only really one side that is standing for and enforcing censorship- the ultimate method of shouting down, by ensuring the other side can't even speak- and that ain't the GG side.

How long was Starcraft: Ghost in development as well, that must have been about seven years as well. Good thing Blizzard's released titles tend to well financially...

Not really, or at least not significantly. It's the so- and laughably- called 'moderate sunni states'* (plus Turkey) currently partaking in the bombing that did by far the most training and arming of rebels, and who actively encouraged their own wacky bands of religious nutbars by preferentially arming them. Ironically, they're still fighting proxy wars in Libya against each other even as they 'cooperate' in bombing Syria, but they're the last people- even behind Israel and the US- who should be intervening anywhere in the middle east if you want anything approaching a progressive, inclusive end result. The oil can't run out fast enough so they can be cut loose and go back to being medieval totalitarian irrelevancies. Wonder how long it will take for Saudi tanks to roll into Yemen. They've already bombed shia rebels previous, having them running Sana'a won't be tolerated long given their response in Manama. *Bahrain, a sunni emirate ruling majority shia via oppression and having 6000 Saudi troops on call for any required liquidations; Saudi Arabia, largest exporter and financier of terrorism anywhere, run by Salafi/ Wahhabi extremists (same as ISIS, Al-Q, they just went off reservation and don't recognise KSA's obvious superiority) intent on exporting their medieval philosophy everywhere possible, plus the UAE and Qatar, who along with KSA primarily funded and trained ISIS as well as fighting each other by proxy in Libya. The only moderate state in that group is Jordan, and they've always been compliant in recognition of the Brits establishing the current Hashemite monarchy during the Sykes-Picot years, without that they'd be an irrelevant province in some other country.

Nope, what makes someone gay is, well, being gay, that doesn't matter whether you're poor or rich. But a reasonable amount of money is a factor that makes someone more likely to be 'socially aware'.

She was imagining you were Vladimir Vladimirovich- and he wouldn't care about any puny scratches. ('Scratched the **** out of me' might explain some people's intense butthurt about things Russian though...) I don't think that issue has anything significant to do with information overload type stuff, it's far more likely that most Russians just plain don't care about LGBT issues much at all, and most of those who do are anti rather than pro. Russia is both conservative and not particularly rich, the average Russian is unlikely to spend much time being a SJW on the internet because they're busy doing other things and caring about other things, don't access the internet etc. The only play it has is with regards to a 'decadent west trying to subvert brave Russia' narrative, and anything can be spun that way; though in this case it is certainly counter productive to give direct ammunition for such an interpretation. But overall social activism is very much a fundamental of being rich (relatively), bored, 'liberal' and middle class.

Buy Victoria II, install PDM, never go back to EUIV. Problem solved. Or not, as Tigranes says abstraction is inevitable and there's plenty in Vic II as well. EU is a game that unfolds over hundreds of years, if it were possible to achieve goals in fifty years people would end the game in 1500 rather than 1800 because if there's one thing that really is boring in an EU game it's having a large, unassailable empire and nothing much more to do with it. If you sweat the amount of in game time something takes it probably is not the game for you whatever else, it's simply a slow game in terms of in game time. I always found it annoying that so much of the modelling of important stuff was abstracted and that things that happened historically were effectively impossible to achieve in game, and they were typically the really big and significant ones like the Ottos conquering the Mamelukes in a couple of years and thus becoming the power in the eastern Med for two centuries or are handled by unique mechanics that don't apply elsewhere (typical for something like the Burgundy succession, though more often found in mods). There is a choice between determinism and mimicing history because it happened and a more organic approach, both have disadvantages- I still remember well in EU2 a single province Poland sacked Moscow because that is what happened historically. The whole thing is also not helped by Paradox's current obsession with catering to the 20% of their customer base that has ever played MP and balancing things for MP only (or not balancing/ testing at all), which is where the super long truces come from.

I'll let you into a secret- I'm not even slightly worried about disagreeing with you as I don't value your opinions at all. I call it trolling because telling someone they should 'appreciate'- your word- their country being bombed is trolling, plain and simple.

Not at all, you just bitter because NATO bombed some sense into Serbia. But this prevented you guys from committing even more acts of genocide. You really don't seem to appreciate what NATO did for your country, imagine what would have happened if the Bosnian war had been to allowed continue? Imagine how many additional Serbs would be facing war crimes in the Hague, trust me Sarex NATO did Serbia a favour by ending the war. It may not seem like it but NATO intervention was the best long term strategy for stability of the whole region Trolling is bad enough but telling someone who may well have had friends or relatives 'liberated, from life' by your good friends in NATO and telling them that they should be grateful for it- again, and again, no less- is bad taste at best and is- absolutely- the definition of trolling for a response. It's also boring, lazy and- sadly- utterly par for the course, for you.