Drowsy Emperor

Being good at SC multiplayer is much less about tricks and tactics and more about pure speed and endless replaying to get the routine ingrained in the system. Unless you're going to spend the better part of every day playing long successions of matches, you're never going to be good/satisfied with your performance. Everyone else has several years head start over you. Its a second job to be good at the game. Find some real life friends to **** around with in the game, forget intensely competitive matches with freaks who haven't gotten out of their basements since SC2 came out.

They just identified a ripe market and are abusing it for all its worth. Gamers who were teenagers or in their early twenties when Infinity engine and Fallout games were popular have watched more than ten years go by without getting to play a game that will tickle those particular needs and building up nostalgia all the while. They probably never will experience games like that again because you can't relive your childhood indulgences twice with the same amount of pleasure. Its not about throwing in a checklist of pieces in a blender and getting your previous experience back. Which is what's being sold here. PS: Plus those gamers are people with jobs now and can finance ludicrously expensive kickstarter goals.

I haven't played anything in a while. I'm tempted to get the new Starcraft but the last campaign wasn't all that great and I've been hearing worse things about this one (from a gamespot review).

To make one thing clear: I don't hate the idea of another game like Torment. What I absolutely despise is the approach they're taking.

I see they're still suckering people in with what amounts to false advertising. I'm not throwing in a dime until a playable demo or some-such proves these people didn't come back from trash heap of video game history to cash in on every remaining piece of nostalgia. Btw I'm the last person on this forum to defend Bioware but the "let's slam the competition (without a single game to our name)" type advertising to draw in the malcontents is cheap cheap cheap. When your two greatest selling points are: 1. We're making a game that's going to be like another game with which it has exactly one english noun in common 2. We're making a game that's not going to be like their games ...something starts to stink like Volo's attitude.

I wish for it to fail because its riding on the back of a 14 year old game its unrelated to, and part of a trend in both games and film of abusing people's nostalgia for the purposes of making money. This is all done by people who haven't created anything significant since then, but all of a sudden they're promising cities of gold. PST's starting point wasn't imitation, in fact it was the exact opposite. That's why it worked. If their idea was so good, they could have stood by it without selling it as a pseudo sequel.

The irritating marketing behind the name is one thing but the point is that PST isn't a generic game that can be easily imitated with newer graphics. It has the stamp of its creator, the particular time it came out, its engine, the storytelling innovations and the well made setting. None of these things can be repeated either because they're too personal, unavailable or simply not "innovative" (or new) anymore. There literally is nothing to substantiate the "it'll be like torment" at all besides promises and the tenuous connections to the real PST.

I hope you fail. I hope you turn 18 someday and realize how stupid that comment was. Yours too. The only style that can be attributed to PST is part of a setting that won't be featured in this game. As for making a "philosophical" game in the vein of PST, I can only laugh at that. PST's philosophical bent isn't something that can be imitated deliberately. Besides that wasn't the point. Anyone can claim to make a game inspired by PST. There's nothing wrong with that. But to call the game TORMENT and to write 10 pages stressing how similar the game is going to be to something that's totally unrelated to it is just pathetic.

I just had to log on and post regarding this. Its beyond shameful. A bunch of dudes that worked on PST are making a new game that has absolutely nothing to do with any PST character, setting or story but they're using the name and reputation of a fourteen year old game to sell their product, because they didn't have the balls (or the faith in their project?) to sell it as something completely distinct. I won't be buying it and I sincerely hope it fails.

Conclusion: Pac-man invented nightclubs.

The grand handicap imposed on the next school shooter will be carrying additional magazines. So that will set him back about 50+$ for the magazines and a tactical vest. Might as well call this the 50$ bill. Of course, the only point of this is so that the politicians can make a show of doing something while the weapons industry gets to enjoy the spoils of the pre-ban shopping frenzy. And the black market and collectors will get a nice increase in value for their pieces due to rarity. I guess increasing funds for the school system and therapy for troubled children was too un-american to be considered.

I agree that there are some prognosis which are either misdiagnosed or complete hoaxes, yet even if they weren't the correct approach to medication in psychology is to manage a condition, not treat it. Pills are merely a crutch to help with treating the actual cause, unless that is an extreme case where there is an actual physical cause, either hormonal or neurological. There may a societal angle here, it seems that nowadays treatment for an unfulfilled life is a happy pill rather than a life. I agree, although I think its a valid question to ask if some of the pills are indeed treating the condition or making it worse. The Generation RX documentary alleges that Lilly, the maker of the original Prozac knew, from their trials, that the drug can cause suicidal tendencies, and suicide, particularly in children and teens. Looking over the wikipedia article, it appears that its now common knowledge and part of the warning contained in the drug packaging. Subsequent documented cases of suicide of teens (and one school shooting commited by a teen using Prozac), beg the question how it happened that an anti depressant that makes people kill themselves (?) got onto the market in the first place.

When imposing a tyranny of sorts over people, the standard instruments most governments use is the police and secret services - not the military. The military is usually fairly patriotic and too powerful and self sufficient to be a dependable tool. Its also more distant from the political centers and consequently less corrupted by them. Of course, there are military juntas with strong armies and weak police, but in western states and the former soviet union, the opposite is the norm. The scenario of a government declaring war on the general populace is unlikely because it makes it impossible to regain legitimacy afterwards, which is still a fairly important component of rule in the west. What is entirely more possible is a slow decline into authoritarianism, not through force but through the growth of surveillance and media manipulation a la Orwell's 1984. Today's citizens are entirely dependent on those sources of information that can be controlled and channeled - the average city dweller wouldn't know if a war erupted two blocks down from his apartment if the evening news don't mention it. So, to cut the long story short, this is already happening.

I can imagine its horrible, but some stats say 30 million people in the US alone use anti-depressants. I seriously doubt there are 30 million cases of clinical depression, in any society. Holy **** http://thechart.blog...ntidepressants/ Yep They should just try heroin. Well the kids get Ritalin and it apparently has a similar pharmacological effect to cocaine and meth (being a form of amphetamine). So, they're sort of halfway there.

Everything is "intrinsic" to the human race. Acid reflux, indigestion, and headaches are. Doesn't mean people shouldn't take pepto bismol and pain relievers. Allergies are part of the human condition, as well, but if you try to tell me I shouldn't take allergy relief, whether it be loratadine or diphenhydramine, I'll laugh in your face. Your stigmatization of diagnosis and treatment strikes me as bizarre. Diagnosis and treatment in psychiatry isn't based on demonstrable, hard facts like in most other branches of medicine. While this is a moot point when someone appears to be truly insane, it raises questions with the now popular (but previously totally ignored) diagnoses like ADHD, depression etc. Its the same branch of medicine that propagated lobotomy, essentially zombie making, as a good form of treatment. That was a mere sixty years ago. I take aspirin and antibiotics and whatever else necessary like any other individual, but when I see 30 million doped up people I see bull**** written all over it.

I can imagine its horrible, but some stats say 30 million people in the US alone use anti-depressants. I seriously doubt there are 30 million cases of clinical depression, in any society. Holy **** http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/19/more-than-1-in-10-in-u-s-take-antidepressants/ Yep

I found the comments under the article hilarious http://shopping.yahoo.com/blogs/digital-crave/most-anticipated-tech-products-2013-011455921.html

I can imagine its horrible, but some stats say 30 million people in the US alone use anti-depressants. I seriously doubt there are 30 million cases of clinical depression, in any society.

You mean a ton of common behaviors intrinsic to the human race have been categorized as illnesses, very likely for the sole purpose of selling medication. The more you think about it, the more its obvious how perfect a product anti-depressants and the like are. When a normal person has a headache they take an aspirin and the headache, in the normal scenario, goes away. When a person is suffering from "depression", a subjective state that's impossible to describe in a definite way you can sell them medicine indefinitely, because you can never really say that the person is cured (especially as people tend to trust medical practitioners more than they trust themselves and easily grow dependent on medication).

Yeah, but the typical consumer of psychiatric medicaton has expanded far beyond the type of cases seen in wards. I ran across the information that in Atlanta university a third of the student population uses Ritalin daily (amongst other things), which they get by simply following the extremely vague checklist for ADHD during a token exam (like tapping their feet impatiently). By now even the dumbest psychiatrists should have caught on to this simple deception - if they care enough to do it.

Thanks for the recommendation. I just watched it and it pretty much confirms my suspicions.

That's what I suspected. The number of real patients in need of care is a relative constant (in every society), but there seems to be a whole influx of newly "created" patients dependent on "treatment" in the same way junkies are dependent on dope. Its the easy way out, dumping problems on others and avoiding responsibility. Another question is if the drugs actually do more harm then good in the long run.

I busted my balls to get the new Wiimote Plus to work on my netbook over bluetooth. The sly buggers in Nintendo changed something so the remote is a royal pain in the ass to set up now. I also screwed up my integrated camera - it stopped working when I installed new bluetooth stack for the remote.

And yet, the USA still has markedly more societal violence than other western states (or indeed most states, worldwide) and more random killings. Obviously there is something wrong with the current approach to psychiatry, the free for all approach to psychiatric medication is either making things worse or not helping at all.

That basically supports my argument. The citizens wouldn't need to be armed because the army wouldn't mobilize against them. I'm not actually against gun ownership, but I think gun ownership to protect yourself from the government makes little sense in our modern society. Its the principle of the thing that's worth upholding. There is no real reason citizens shouldn't be armed. The few moronic accidents do not disqualify thousands of responsible gun owners from ownership. I consider disarming people suspicious, and voluntary abandonment of the privileges of owning a weapon disappointing. Most people are likely to go through their whole life without ever needing one, but if circumstances should arise that they need a weapon and they don't have one because they willingly discarded their right to it* - then they deserve whatever happens to them. *That is the current sad state of affairs throughout most of Europe, and the right to bear arms is one thing I admire about the US, even if the climate there leans dangerously towards worshiping guns as a panacea instead of merely treating them as the tools they are.