Orogun01

So you want to protect freedom by controlling major private companies? There are a gajillion social media options out there. Twitter will not be at the top forever, and if they make moves that end up making themselves obsolete, they get to hang out with Myspace in the has been pile. Sounds like a win-win. The thing is that the general public is not likely to leave Twitter because of disinformation or because they censor issues that they don't really care about. Most people don't use Twitter because of political reasons or to stay informed about great events. Most people just want to look at what celebrities say or what event is trending and leave their stupid opinion about it. So when the real important issues are denied a platform to reach people its a censorship issue that should concern people because their world is getting smaller and more restricted.

Nonek, you should have realized by now that there is no money in making games. The money is in selling other peoples' games. Also 50 people is more than enough to make even AAA games.

Meh, it will likely only be used against political or high profile targets barring a few exceptions of cases that attract too much attention. The Internet is too fast and to wide for it too be properly regulated, they can't jail everyone who says **** on the internet.

Only if the enemies have as much trouble finding you and shooting you from a distance as I do.

AP is the B movies of video games, flawed but with a lot of heart.

What version does she play?

Thanks.

Leveling systems are part of character customization, it the player the power to define their character. As more game incorporate RPG elements and devlopers and publishers realize the power of giving choice within a game there will be more leveling system. Also the escalation provided by level up systems vs the growing challenges is quite the well received feature. This isn't just for stat allocation but for things like weapon unlocks or other systems based on progression. There is a fine balance when it comes to RPGs in that it become difficult to balance an extensive game world for different classes.

I did and I found it ripe with historical inaccuracies The author must have taken a lot of LSD. He was a schizophrenic who used to talk to the ghost of his dead twin sister that he didn't know he had and received a vision that led him to save his son's life by taking him to the doctor preemptively. I don't know if he did LSD though.

It's not a Codex game, it's basically a one man game then a couple of multi-purpose significant contributors coming on board. AoD is brilliant and you should all get it. OK, in fact, not everybody. But if you want to see what a game that actually takes choices and consequences seriously, actually has NPCs lie to you and backstab you, actually has a combat which is very dangerous, actually makes you choose suboptimal outcomes and live with those wounds - that is, all those things people speculate about, wish for, or make empty promises about.... if you want to see a game that does all of that far more than almost any game in RPG history, then this is it. It's a unique thing. For better or for worse its a very pure distilled vision, without the million compromises where unique features become gimmicks and design philosophies become watered down. Which is why some people will hate it, some people will love it. Hey, there's a free demo. (Also, if you thought, regardless of the rest, Alpha Protocol or MOTB were amazing because they gave you such unique roleplaying options that you don't find elsewhere, then AOD gives you a ton of that. Ever talked one enemy group into fighting another enemy group and solve both of your problems? Ever disguised yourself as a guard, scaled the walls with rope, backstab a guard, jump down onto the floor, then smooth-talk the palace's owner about why all that means he should hire you? Ever gone on an assassination mission and then shot your partner in the face to defect to the target's side? Well, there we go.) My problem as usual is the THC0, I can only watch soccer when i'm drunk.

I did and I found it ripe with historical inaccuracies

Probably one of the biggest problems with WRPGs is that they incorporate the systems of tabletop into a campaing that will not use them fully, so you're left with useless builds that would be feasible in a different campaign. Not such excuse here since they just arbitrarily decided what the system would be and that they were going to penalize you for fighting. I really wish that RPGs would let you know how many points are you going to get on level up, how many levels you can expect to gain and what skills you should invest in. I'm getting tired of restarting a game just because I realize that shotguns are useless, charisma and intelligence are dump stats, pistols are not worth it and assault rifles are the best. (I'm talking about you Wasteland) Anything that would let me know what to expect and in what to invest.

So feudalism? It's the GG thread, there's going to be drift. Now that you mention it, I totally agree. If you replace fiefdom with company and feudal lord with investors then it totally makes sense. Granted there is more mobility when compared with actual feudalism but I have to say that the resemblance its uncanny. Particularly the need for one employee to "wear multiple hats" compared to how serfs where forced to produce all of the needs for the feudal lord.

Well, if Capitalism worked as it should then there wouldn't be any need for affirmative action. Capitalism is working how it should, those who control production, distribution, and exchange of money are being enriched while those that don't control must sell labor in order to subsist with any leftover currency being used for entertainment or purchasing capital in the longshot hope they can utilize it to enrich themselves. No, ideally everybody can become a capitalist. You only need to subsist under your means, work hard to increase the value of your labor and purchase capital. It is not rich people's fault that those lower class plebs have no access to the best education, the money required to start your own business or the connections to make it work. They should had just been born into it like they did. The ideal is a nice sales pitch, but it isn't reality. In current practice, Capitalism tends toward concentration of wealth and stagnation of social mobility. I'm sure someone has an all-new all-different Capitalism that doesn't, but that ain't gonna be implemented peacefully any time soon. I have one, its the one where you're allowed to kill the competition and companies die out due to literal infighting. Why are we talking about this again?

Well, if Capitalism worked as it should then there wouldn't be any need for affirmative action. Capitalism is working how it should, those who control production, distribution, and exchange of money are being enriched while those that don't control must sell labor in order to subsist with any leftover currency being used for entertainment or purchasing capital in the longshot hope they can utilize it to enrich themselves. No, ideally everybody can become a capitalist. You only need to subsist under your means, work hard to increase the value of your labor and purchase capital. It is not rich people's fault that those lower class plebs have no access to the best education, the money required to start your own business or the connections to make it work. They should had just been born into it like they did. Also; here's to hoping TB makes a recovery.

Well, if Capitalism worked as it should then there wouldn't be any need for affirmative action. Not always ..sometimes AA is needed to address historical injustices ...like Apartheid ? Not really, in the idyllic world of Capitalism where the Free Market will fix everything it means that a segregated society will split into two societies. Except that it doesn't because of government regulation.

Well, if Capitalism worked as it should then there wouldn't be any need for affirmative action.

Relevant to this thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxroiTRg7Tg

Afaik, yes. Not to mention that there are scholarships and loans based solely on ethnicity. Discrimination - Apparently perfectly fine so long as the right group of people are being discriminated against. Some of those loans are by the private sector from people of an ethnicity who want give money to people like them so that they have the same chance they did or better. Still, the people who manage them are a bit stingy.

I don't think that the Ron Paul crowd were all libertarians, at the time the term was pretty unknown and has only come to the light due to Paul politics.

I really hope they don't do an explicit sex scene, part of it because it would ruin the comic for me.

What media are you watching? Her qualifications are a huge part of the discussion, and for good reason, since she does have the most experience in the crowd. Her mistakes are super magnified, I hear about Benghazi regularly and the stupid emails are finally starting to fade into obscurity. I'd say the talk about her gender has been fairly minimal, particularly compared to the amount of attention race received with Obama. I'm not voting for her, I'm not really a fan of her policies by and large, but some of the people going off about her are just off their rockers. It is mostly liberal talk shows and Hollywood reporter crap, mostly the same type of shows where you see an actor promoting his/her movie: Now comes Hillary to promote her campaign. It is a bit bothersome to see a politician get the same soft treatment that actors get.

Yeah, but not nicer jobs than the smart, more capable or hardworking people.

Jesus, dude. Put a lid on it. I don't think she'll let me. Seriously though, at this point the media doesn't even care about her qualifications they just want it because it would mean the first female president. So Hillary gets to hog all the limelight, her mistakes forgotten and hidden while nobody even knows who the other candidates are.

I'm going with Trump, I'm tired of making the best choice out of a bad bunch. Now I want to make the worst.