BruceVC

I agree with Notch's general sentiment ....but I would like to see him say "no " to joining a reputable company that offers you $2 Billion ....somehow I think he would suddenly find the cause of social media gaming more agreeable

Any attempt to stop cheating or punish cheaters I think is excellent, as long as its effective. So well done Titanfall

You funny Barti, you make me laugh

Well the good news there are loads of people on these forums who suffer from similar ailments to you, so I don't think you'll have to wait long before someone comments

Welcome to the forums

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa. Why would Norway have joined NATO and not Sweden?

But you must have liked Isabella's outfits? Especially her boots.....

It's in Danish, so probably not that interesting? and it's pretty cookie-cutter dating psychology - I'm just the guinea pig doing all the experiments heh. and yep that's purple hair Yeah you right, I don't understand much Danish

The reality is for a hardcore fan all that paraphernalia makes sense and $100 is probably worth it. I would spend that on BG3 accessories if it was ever released?

And now it makes perfect sense why you come across as such a weirdo... As long as you are still my friend and support Romance in RPG I can deal with anything....even being a weirdo

Dude that was a seriously funny and interesting video. I loved it, I like the fact that behind the scenes it was harder to get the girls but the guys were easy to convince That lady looks like your g-friend with the purple hair? Send me the information around the book, I am very interested in what the book is about

Agreed. It was clichéd but it had a tense atmosphere and some massive jumpscares that nearly had me launching myself out of my chair. Wowzers, I have to honest I'm now even more excited, it sounds like a game that would benefit from some good weed

Instagram and FB operate in the same circle. Part of the whole internet social media class. Occulus Rift occupies a drastically different niche. That of general technology, with a particular focus on games, and with some attention from hardcare gaming. Facebook and hardcore gaming do not really overlap. In fact, there's quite a bit of hostility because of the type of games Facebook promotes. And to put it simply, people fear the Facebook acquisition moving Occulus into areas that Facebook is dominant and experienced with. Look at Google's behavior with youtube. They've made strides to integrate youtube with the Google+ social service. And then realize Google has far more public goodwill than Facebook. The fear that Facebook will try to make Occulus serve Facebook is not entirely without basis. Personal note: I'm not bothered by it. That's largely because I still don't see VR kicking off as big as most others. Though I do see what little potential it had for gaming being hurt by this acquisition. Thankfully there's still Morpheus. Okay you guys make some good points, personally I'm not concerned but I do understand some of the potential risk. What worries me a little, as Tale alluded to, is that the Oculus technology won't be utilized as effectively towards the games I enjoy but rather a more social media type game. But I guess time will tell if my concerns are valid

Oh, I got that you agreed with me there, I just like hearing myself talk. Consider my post am addendum to your addendum. It must be weird for you having people agree with you on topics outside of jokes and women in bikini's ...how does it feel ?

I'll bet you would be if EA was taking over PE... which is exactly what this is like to the OR backers. I'm going to write Kickstarter over this and if they cannot draft terms to prevent this sort of thing in the future then they can just remove my account, because I won't be supporting anything else. Your comparison is incorrect. Oculus did a Kickstarter for an early dev kit. To the best of my knowledge they have delivered a dev kit to each of their backers, fulfilling their obligation. They have since gone on and made a second iteration of the dev kit and now they were bought by Facebook. So if you want to make a analogy with Pillars of Eternity, this would be as if Obsidian finished Pillars of Eternity, went on to make Pillars of Eternity 2: The Search For More Pillars independently, then were subsequently bought out by EA. I wouldn't be thrilled with that happening, that's for sure, but I wouldn't be screaming bloody murder at Kickstarter either since Obsidian had fulfilled their Kickstarter obligations. Why is there such furore over FB buying Oculus? Instagram was bought by FB and they were left to operate independently and this only benefited them. FB will provide resources to Oculus and make the product cheaper and more interoperable. We should be celebrating this prudent business decision, or this is a case of the misplaced " we hate big business as they always destroy smaller companies ideas and vision" ?

Those are some good suggestions but Obsidian has purposely not revealed too much about the main story and plot. Its more exciting this way as people wait in suspense for when the game is released

Do it Finland, join NATO. You need to ensure that Russia doesn't think they can just annex your country on some false pretense. Russia needs to realize there will be a military consequence for there aspirations around geographical hegemony There would be military consequences even if Finland don't join in NATO, as Finish Defense Forces are well equipped and it has quite large number soldiers to put front of hostile forces and some question if those military consequences would be any higher even if Finland joins in NATO, as NATO has been quite unwilling to do any military actions against Russia whole time that NATO has existed, especially when it comes towards places like Finland that has little strategic value for NATO and has only little amount natural resources that interest NATO countries. And last time Russia (USSR) attacked and tried annex Finland with false pretense end result was that international community put Finland compensate its losses. Thats true and in the past understandably NATO has been reluctant to go to war with Russia and the USSR. But since Crimea things have changed, John Kerry has been assuring countries like the Baltic states that they won't allow another Crimea annexation of NATO members. But I am not suggesting Putin or NATO needs to go to war or will ever go to war. Its just less likely that Russia will consider annexing any part of Finland if they are part of NATO. After Crimea it is should be obvious to Russia that illegally annexing of parts of a country will not be acceptable and there will be economic consequences, because we are talking about powers that have nuclear technology and thats the best way to get countries like Russia to change there direction. I don't predict an actual war just economic isolation

Tonight I'll start playing F.E.A.R, I have never played any of these games in the series before and I'm looking forward to it

Do it Finland, join NATO. You need to ensure that Russia doesn't think they can just annex your country on some false pretense. Russia needs to realize there will be a military consequence for there aspirations around geographical hegemony

So you ignore the points I make above and I and others make in other threads, say you're too busy, but you're not too busy to say 'righto!' to a very polarized and misinformed post trying to disagree with what I said? Seriously. Go apply for a PR job somewhere, or run for office. You've got the skills. If you're not ugly, you may go far. Tip on the polarization for you, Calex, and everyone else who think it's a Republican vs. Democrat thing. It almost never is. Both parties are by and large bought by the same people both to hedge their investments and divide and conquer. It would behoove you to stop thinking you're on Team Obama or Team *insert your favorite Republican here*, and realize that with either team the game is rigged. Yeah I changed my mind and decided to comment when I realized how biased and uninformed some of your comments are..I hope you don't mind

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot. Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya? Mr. Obama is the commander in chief of the U.S. Military, not Mr. McCain. McCain can warmonger all he wants, and does, but Obama calls the shots. interesting /= tricky. Please do not misquote me. I refer to a number of different things involving a number of different countries when I say 'interesting diplomacy'. It's interesting because those pushing for overt military intervention in Syria (the Obama administration indeed was doing this and there are numerous articles as well as videos proving this that you've apparently not watched/read or just ignore (though it was pretty hard to ignore Kerry)) were thwarted, and that doesn't happen too often these last couple decades. Ukraine/Crimea marks the second major diplomatic setback to Anglo-American hegemony in the last couple years, Syria the first. Russia and Putin had a hand in both, moreso in the second of course. There was no popular uprising in Libya. It was a coup sponsored by some members of NATO (the US being one), and only succeeded due to military intervention by some of those members. The U.N. sanctioning something does not make it legal or right. Really, you have to ignore a lot of things to not think Obama got us involved in Libya or realize that his administration was pushing to go into Syria as well. And whether or not France was involved (and they were) has nothing to do with Obama committing U.S. forces to the invasion of a nation. Nor does what some republicans such as McCain bliabbling about have anything to do with the actual action of committing to military force. Nevermind that Obama committing military in the invasion of another nation without congress's explicit authorization is unconstitutional, though he is not the first president to overstep those bounds he did overstep them, and yea that is impeachable if congress was going to actually do it's job (something it doesn't do too often for better and worse). Half of what you wrote is incoherent by the way. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's due to those ****** you stuck in there. Try not to swear so much. This is the main issue I have with your posts Valsuelm. You make some accurate points and then you make comments that are completely and utterly factually false. You say "There was no popular uprising in Libya. It was a coup sponsored by some members of NATO (the US being one), and only succeeded due to military intervention by some of those members" The insurrection in Libya was part of the Arab Spring, I am sure you have heard of that? This had nothing to with Western powers or NATO. This was about the citizens of several countries in the Middle East wanting a better life for themselves and the fact they were tired of there rulers and or governing families living a life of opulence while they lived in poverty and squalor, I find it insulting that you don't seem to think that people living in countries lead by dictators don't aspire to a better life. In your world the uprising in Libya must have been due to "Western influence...its just demonstrates your ignorance around the causes of the Arab Spring. Its the same fallacious understanding you have of other global events, like the reason why the Zimbabwe economy is in such a bad state. You think its because of the West and sanctions when its due to the disastrous economic and political decisions Mugabe has made You really need to stop believing everything is some great Western conspiracy, you sound like a zealot

2004 lot of countries that one could say are in Russian perceived sphere of influence more than Finland joined in NATO, like for example Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed. Of course joining in NATO could rise political tensions with Russia, which of course could impact our trade and agreements with them, but as Finland is already member of EU and does military cooperation with NATO countries predicted impacts caused by joining in NATO are seen minor. And as by joining in NATO Finland also has high probability that its weapon trade in NATO countries rise, as currently Finnish military contractors can't make offers on most valuable contracts, as they are mostly only for member states and of course as members state Finland would get cheaper contracts on some of its equipment and get some equipment possibly to acquire some equipment that Finland is currently prohibited to buy, which would probably mean that military pending would drop from it current level. So joining to any multinational organization that has some actual economical, political or/and military power is of course more complicate than signing couple papers, especially when joining said organization is against current constitution, which currently state that Finland is nonallied country, but it's not Russia's influence that keeps Finland out of NATO. Elerond I heard that the Finnish army uses reindeers to transport its soldiers and military hardware and this is the main reason you guys can't join NATO as NATO doesn't allow animals to be used in times of war, is this true?

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot. Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya? Well said, the suggestion that Obama is a warmonger is absurd. He has deliberately avoided wars like Syria and Iran and allowed negotiations and sanctions to get those countries to tow the line, despite criticism from the Republicans that this made him weak and the "USA was betraying it allies" . In Libya the Americans supplied air power to defeat Gaddafi's ground forces like his tanks and anti-aircraft defenses. But it was the French and the UK who did most of the international intervention and it was the Libyan rebels who did the fighting on the ground. Any person who thinks that Libya was an example of an American driven and led military war has no clue what they are talking about

You leaving out the part where you came across a pack of timber wolves and you and Tommy had to fight for your survival All in a days work for GD. You must be one of the few members on these forums whose daily excursions in RL sounds like a session of Skyrim

We do not moderate every slapfight but when the thread is threatening to completely collapse due to petty personal insults Ill occasionally try to salvage it. I was actually impressed you didn't take his bait. To be honest I had no idea who you were talking about or what you actually meant, but now I understand. I don't mean to be rude but sometimes you make these one line comments that might as well be in Mandarin ...because I just don't get what you are saying But saying all that I think you Mods all do an excellent job at allowing us to have our debates which I imagine must seem a little pointless and repetative at times