Drowsy Emperor

I've been comparing screenshots of Age of Conan to Warhammer Online since they apparently came out the same year and I'm quite surprised how bad Warhammer looks. I wonder what they dumped the enormous budget on since it is, except for the characters, in every other respect - worse than WoW. As for a direct comparison to AoC, that would be an insult to the game.

It was the only game that actively punished you for leveling up, by making the monsters an absolute annoyance to deal with at higher levels, particularly if you were, like I was, playing a fully melee character.

^^ He's a well known Starcraft II comentator. -Graphics look quite dated -Some sound effects are from DoW2 -Looks fairly standard shooter gameplay -Combat looks okay -Teammates are either retarded and useless or he doesn't know how to use them -Enemies are stupid, even for orcs -I like the jump pack

Gamespot gave the game only 85. If I didn't see it with my own eyes I wouldn't have believed it.

This would be a dream come true! I know a few good shops for tabletop RPGs in Vienna, at least let me raid them first.

But it is uncomfortable, the idea at least, of having a single player game you can't play without going online. Or at least not having the choice to do so, if you want to.

Who is the bad guy, Q? Who exactly are you talking about? You can point a finger and find a "bad guy" but you'll be hard pressed to find a "good guy" by your standards. The rebels are the product of the same political and cultural environment that created Q, how can they be the good guys? Its not like they're a grass roots movement, most of them have been part of the ruling elite one way or the other. All middle eastern states are authoritarian, its the way that world works. Do you think they're crying for democracy, or for the opportunity to be the next king? You'd expect more popular support for a supposedly democratic movemnt, no?

Gifted was asking and he got an answer, I wasn't really judging either way, just pointing out what NATO is in my opinion. I'm in a no man's land on the issue, NATO [uS] having decided to support every pro-islamic, anti-Serb element possible, contrary to its own long term interests and against a country that was decidedly pro western and would have been a steadfast ally. The notion that the revolt was going to end with a clear winner and that its going to be the rebels has no grounding in fact. It only became obvious when the west declared its support for the rebels, because that would mean it would go as far as necessary for them to win the war and to most of us that follow international relations its also a signal that the west was actively involved in the preparatory stages of the revolt. The visits of the soon to be revolutionaries to France, before the revolt broke out strongly suggest this.

Because we say so Never mind that they are not a uniform faction and led by former military personel, most likely looking to replace the current regime with a new, similar one, just with different names on the business cards. To hold this belief is essentially denying history. No, its called common sense. But whatever, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Well I ordered some Arctic Silver Matrix (was the only one available), the card is super clean so if this doesn't solve it nothing will. If the paste manages to drop the temperature 10c I think it'll be fine. It basically goes from 45-50c when doing nothing to 85-100c when in game, and after 95 it craps out usually. It craps out in say Painkiller after 20 minutes, but can run Oblivion for as long as you like. I'll have to, if the paste thing doesn't work

Hey I'm master gamer extraordinaire, I leave all the grubby work to the grubs. Jokes aside, i was under the impression that its beyond repair, but I'll try the paste thing anyway.

I neva dun it before boss.

You know how my graphics card was half fried? Well it still is. Works okay for undemanding games but chokes and dies on the new stuff most of the time. No fun at all. And no cash to replace it. Am considering an ATI Radeon 5670 or some such, but I need to get the moneys first.

I played WoW for a fun 20 days of soloing to level 52, but the pretty world design could not salvage the incessant grind and boring quests that made the meat of the gameplay. I assume with friends it would have been much better but there were none actively playing at the time. I'm just curious about Rift as it seem so popular now, I can't really afford a subscription based game right now. I'll try out WAR at some point, apparently both it and AoC have a lot of new subs after going ftp. I'm most interested in AoC because of your recommendations and most importantly the free form combat. Apart from the nice graphics that's the biggest draw for me. If its anything like the old game Rune I'm likely to enjoy it a lot. I also tried Guild Wars which was ugly and boring. Haven't tried AION but I'm not particularly drawn to it.

I expect it can't be very good when it failed so bad but I'm interested to know why. And what's the general consensus on Rift?

LOL Any particular reason for that apart from the fact its half dead?

Ah okay, that's tolerable. Probably the only possible way for it to work and not be like Oblivion. And the stuff you said about non leveled unique loot? I suspect the main plot will be standard fare, but as long as the rest of the quests are good, its no big deal.

I am officially interested. What about the level scaling?

I like the idea, the first time in an Oblivion dungeon was incredibly atmospheric and intense. That potential will hopefully not be squandered again. Do we have confirmation that dungeons are unique?

wordpress image hosting I caved in. Fifteen euros. Going from the top left: box, art book, graphic novel. Bottom: mouse pad, dvd box, figurine.

Didn't receive their paychecks huh. They even mention the graphics, lol. This is probably about right though. A good game with technical issues, that I can believe of Eidos.

Ignoring the rest of this thread, why do you feel NATO is vital to the US? NATO is a tool of the US economic and political elites for perpetuating their wealth, power and ideology. Most of all NATO gives US policy a semblance of legitimacy as its decisions on the surface, look less like US policy and more like a compromise and collective actions, which they rarely are. It also gives prestige, and reinforces the US role of the leader of the western world, and its influence in the member states. I imagine regular Americans aren't exactly thrilled about financing its huge machinery as they have very little to directly gain from it, apart from animosity when they go to other countries as tourists.

It is no more morally defensible than keeping the Saudi Arabian monarchy in power, yet there is no scramble to get at the Saudi king. I don't think there is a moral problem with middle eastern authoritarianism, its how their world works. However, non intervention in internal policies of other countries was one of the founding principles of the UN, and for good reason. I believe people everywhere are capable of resolving their political problems on their own, and I think they should have the right to do so. Intervening, without the clear support of the majority of the UN undermines the system of security created after WWII and antagonizes everyone. No one can feel safe if at any moment the US or EU can barge in your house and tell you how to do things. It prompts a scramble for nuclear and biological armaments, any sort of safeguard, however temporary - which in turn forces harsher responses from the west and so the cycle goes on and on... Even your security will be compromised in the long term, its only so long you can quell each and every problem by single sided use of force.

You're presuming that: a) he wouldn't be able to achieve a quick victory b) that he couldn't work around internal issues Maybe you are right, although I don't think so. As events have moved in a direction that renders these questions unanswerable everything boils down to assumptions. I assume that a) is possible and b), and I fail to see how the new "government" will take care of b) after they have finished gutting each other over who gets to rule. On what do you base the legitimacy and dependability of the "revolutionaries" apart from the "they are our guys"? Because I don't see they have a credible claim to either. Show me some concrete evidence that there is any good out of getting rid of Q besides a supposed "moral" and "ideological" victory.

Nothing, let the rebellion get crushed (or not inspire it in the first place). Wait for the inevitable transition of one of his sons to power, which are from what I see far more inclined towards the west. And without the burden of previous bad relations. I don't see any great loss for the west there, the oil would have flowed regardless. And the Libyan people would have been much better off, presumably.