Zoraptor

You still make more $$$ on a full price PC game than on a full price console game, even though the latter is more expensive in absolute terms, because of the console licencing fees. In fact this change will increase their overheads as they will have to run the PC multiplayer stuff themselves rather than PC users running it themselves. Piracy, getting a dedicated (and most importantly, captive) userbase, streamlined DLC delivery and the possibility of selling mods seems the most likely reasons. Pretty much the same as the changes to BattleNet and various bits about SC2/ D3 development on the Blizzard side. The only really odd thing about it is the supposed use of Steam when MW2 seems to not even be available for preorder on it yet.

On Deus Ex, the sales figures for DX and DXIW were in the presentation Squeenix did when buying Eidos. It showed DXIW selling around 50% more copies than DX did (800k vs 1.2m, iirc) which seemed really weird given that public perception of DXIW was so bad they changed Project Snowblind from being a DX universe game because of it.

Poster's alignment has shifted 5 points to economic left (38), and five points to liberal (38). Poster's alignment has shifted from Social Democrat to Anarchist That actually is a rather nice concept, though likely to be too controversial to be actually used any time soon, I fear.

But you considering that a win is not strictly irrelevant as by any objective measure he still won, if he was World Champion at the start he would still be at the end, and you would not no matter how courageous you may have been. You may get respect for being plucky, but you don't get points for it. There are arguments for giving points for 'moral victories' under certain circumstances, but they really need some sort of other context to frame them. Colonel Frost et al at Arnhem in WW2, fighting off thousands of Tiger equipped Germans with a few hundred light infantry past the point at which they ought to have been relieved could be considered a victory despite ultimately losing, but only because they should not have been needing to hold for that long if the rest of Market-Garden worked, and only in the context of an operation that ultimately failed. He's a communist, and so was Stalin? We've yet to see a birth certificate proving Obama isn't Finnish?

Jokes about XCOM Enforcer 2 aside, so far as I am aware the Levine shooter is not related to XCOM and Irrational are no longer working on their XCOM title (perhaps because their subsidiary studio keep on being pulled into doing Bioshock stuff). Last I heard the suggestions were that Firaxis had been doing some preliminary work on one but it was unlikely to proceed.

That isn't what happened though- the Soviets presented the Finns with a land exchange proposal which was very nearly approved and which actually gave Finland more territory than the USSR, prior to the war, and after the war took pretty much exactly what they asked for in that agreement, just without giving any territory in exchange. If it wasn't the USSR/ Stalin there wouldn't be any question over what their aims were and whether they'd achieved them- there really wasn't much at all stopping them from setting whatever terms they wanted in either the Winter or especially the Continuation War. Everything else is immaterial, yes they lost more men, yes they annoyed the French and British (I'm sure Uncle Joe was literally shaking at the prospect of having Chamberlain write him a strongly worded rebuke) but they did exactly what they set out to do. There really isn't any other definition of winning a war. They wouldn't under any real world circumstances because they are far more complex than just 'down with the USA' and have far more complex goals, some of which are contradictory with each other. AQ's for example are basically (1) reestablish Caliphate (2) destroy heretical sects (=Shia and moderate Sunnis) (3) convert rest of world to Islam. Point (2) is directly inimical to both Hezbollah and Iran, as they well know.

On that one issue WoD is correct, Finland did lose the Winter War- saying otherwise is like saying that Germany won WW1 because on paper the allies had a huge numerical advantage, control of the seas, and surrounded Germany, so just getting a chunk of Prussia lopped was actually a victory all things considered. There's also no doubt that the Soviets could have conquered all of Finland if they had wanted to in either the Winter or Continuation Wars, in the WW by the time the armistice was signed there really wasn't much in the way of an organised Finnish army left and they'd lost all of their major defensive lines short of Helsinki, while in the Continuation War the situation was equally as bad by the end. In the end the soviets took pretty much exactly what they wanted to do by territorial exchange right at the beginning and that's pretty much it (plus the rights to use/ build a naval base on one island without sovereignty transfer, iirc). Finland did perform as best as could be expected, and was exemplary in other regards (eg not invading the USSR past their original territory) but that doesn't make it a victory any more than me lasting 1 round with a heavyweight boxer is anything other than a moral victory just because he's twice my size, and unless the rules stipulate I win by lasting 1 round.

I understand it fine, and the idea of Iran giving any of those parties the bomb is as likely as the US giving its nominal ally, the USSR, the bomb in World War 2. Iran is probably the country most appalled by the gross ineptitude being shown in Afghanistan because it has a direct and highly negative impact on them, namely getting flooded by cheap opium. They've also always strongly opposed the Taleban and their AQ allies, unlike others, and this has not changed- probably their most well known supporter in Afghanistan, Ismail Khan, had the Taleban trying to assassinate him just last month. They've never supported AQ in Iraq either as they have more than enough good Shia allies there (limited example, Moqtada al-Sadr) to not need any Sunni ones if they want to cause trouble.

That last tweet is clearly referring to the addition of a proper spectrum of left wing radical ideological dialogue choices into the game, which as all well informed individuals know is the reason for the delay. Clearly it is referring to petits-bourgouise concepts such as 'salary' now being outmoded in AP. And I for one welcome this new enlightenment.

There is no chance whatsoever- it's a fiction entirely within the realms of neo-con fantasy and ignorance stoking. Radical Shia and radical Sunni hate each other. Hate. Each. Other. Iran is radical Shia, Hamas and AQ radical Sunni. 90% of the support for both AQ and Hamas still comes from the Sunni Arab gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, and pretty much 100% of Hamas' arms comes through Sunni Egypt, and 100% of Palestinian arms through Sunni Egypt or Sunni Jordan. The reason for not wanting Iran to have nukes is purely because it will cripple Israel's strategic position and possibly lead to them having to *gasp* make some real concessions over issues like the Golan Heights, and because Iran's arab neighbours would pack a gigantic sad and probably feel the need to get nukes too. And that, given Saudi Arabia's links to Sunni terrorist groups, might lead to them getting nukes. No, he was exactly unfriendly to them. AQ's an equal opportunity sort of group, they hate infidels, Shia and the wrong sort of Sunnis, including Saddam's brand of secular Sunnism light- you wouldn't find Christians in AQ's cabinet. There has never been any credible evidence of significant links between AQ and Saddam for the simple reason that Saddam knew that AQ was as dangerous to him as the US, Iran or anyone else. He was, however, pretty friendly with Hamas as they have no real pretensions towards pan-arab worldwide caliphatism and no ability to put that into action even if they did. Rumsfeld meeting Saddam.jpg In an additional note my spell checker considers Shia misspelled but not Sunni. :conspiracy:

Where did you end up getting it from, if you don't mind me asking? Cheaper than the 90NZD MightApe is asking?

I refuse to ask questions of those who use blatantly religionist terms like 'thrice-damned' when claiming to be good communists.

Not necessarily, a description like "this 9mm pistol manufactured by Zoraptorean Arms can perforate even the toughest paper bag, but not much else. Its poor construction means it also tends to jam frequently, and at the worst moment possible. In fact, you'd be a fool to bring this gun to a knife fight" might not be seen as good publicity. Due to the way non-realism oreintated games are constructed you're likely to end up with situations where guns that fire identical ammo do differing damage for simple gameplay reasons, implying one is inherently better than the others even when that is not necessarily so. If I make an Steyr AUG an entry level assault rifle whose effectiveness is equivalent to paintballing your enemy, and an m-16 an advanced model for gameplay reasons then that implies a quality difference which Steyr may not be happy with as, technically, they ought to do pretty much exactly the same damage as they fire the same ammo.

The only possibility along those lines is that Sega might sell their loss making North American business, but on the face of it even that isn't at all likely.

While in an alleged Sega document, it bears repeating that neither of those comments were made by someone in Sega, but by a guy from SCEA- Sony's US entertainment arm.

Sega holds the trademark registration, which is usually (but not always) a good indicator of ownership.

Auckland downtown EB definitely had preorder Alpha Protocol boxes a couple of weeks ago, but not the Queen St one. Risen will not turn up retail, most likely, due to Australia's fascist rating scheme- lol, band- so buy online (Gamersgate/ Steam etc) or from MightyApe or equivalent direct importer.

Something like: "The value of our goods does not match" "That's OK, I'll take the difference in gold" [dialogue box] Yes? Second line is said by you, not the merchant, so reverse your answer? Note: I don't have Risen (yet) but that was the problem someone else was having.

Also Arcanum and Wizardry 8, albeit for a different reasons, and off the top of my head. More soberingly, Aliens: Colonial Marines might fit too, it was supposedly near finished a year ago and has disappeared into some 'will eventually be released' ether.

"Uncultured?" I would remind you, comrade, that "culture" is a concept foisted on the proleteriat in an attempt to control our minds and to provide distraction from global revolution- in fact, much as religion is the opiate of the people, culture can be said to be its methamphetamine. Indeed, I have for a long time found cRPGs to be my favourite gaming genre as well.

All is not lost, I have heard rumours that the game may have been delayed to fix this very issue. Apparently they are swapping the capitalist running dog 'Bauer, Bourne, Bond' archetypes for 'Stalin, Trotsky, Marx'. It may not be perfect but I think it deserves a hearty 'congratulations comrades' and a spontaneous rendition (not in the fascio-bourgouis extrajudicial kidnap meaning) of the 'Internationale'.

Took a pic. Sorry about the fuzziness and black and white, we workers don't need colour or multi megapixel camera phones though really. That certainly implies a communist option, doesn't it?

Are you sure you cannot play a communist? I checked my copy of Socialist Worker and its preview shows a screenshot with the dialogue stances suave, professional, extreeeeme and Marxist available.

The plethora of release dates amuses- Gamersgate currently has a pre-order Alpha Protocol releasing October 15, and a second, identical except for not being marked pre-order, version releasing March 10.

I am very disappointed. Too much debate about noise arrow equivalents, itt. I want to know about the possibilities for global revolution, bringing down the system of global slavery laughably known as capitalism and establishment of utopian universal collectivism inherent in the game. I hope it's present, else I may have to reconsider my purchase.