Drowsy Emperor

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.

1. I don't know enough about Syria except that they have an authoritarian secular rule of sorts and as such don't seem to be very threatening. In fact, I think that's the best model in general for middle eastern governments. I'd take authoritarian secularism over authoritarian Islamism dressed up as democracy any day. 2. Yet the EU is trying, with modest success to establish armed forces of sort and use them in crises around the world. Its hard to imagine the US looking at this benevolently considering how vital NATO is to it. 4. Q's history of antagonism with the west is long and I don't know it well enough to discuss it. I do know that a targeted attack killed his daughter, that might make most people sore and that he did support terrorist attacks before. There are however leaders who did not sponsor attacks that were ousted merely for being uncooperative. Allende (killed), Saddam (killed [don't recall any involvement in terrorism]), Milosevic (died in prison)... 5. Yet Libyan energy is not... your energy?

I don't think its an exaggeration. I remember a large string of defeats for the rebels up until NATO intervened. Q's army was better equipped and more efficient at that point. Only when the airforce and tanks were out of the picture, and Q reduced to infantry and improvised vehicles did the conflict stagnate and eventually turn against him. A good question is how far the rebels would have gotten in the first place without outside intelligence support and political support. 231174U put up an article from voltaire.net that suggests the "revolution" was practically planned in France and merely incited at an opportune time. There might have been discontent in Libya, but the open revolt was certainly not a spontaneous thing, and its hard to argue that it would have succeeded without total western support. Its also hard to believe that a man who has ruled for 4 decades would suddenly let power slip away from him and get unseated by a rag tag milita. You don't rule that long without being cunning and creative when it comes to keeping power.

I wish you luck arguing that Quaddafi couldn't have gotten things stable quicker and more efficiently than anyone else, considering that he almost had them crushed. It was in his best interests to keep the oil of Libya flowing after all as it was the basis of his rule. So if you substitute the desire for "stability" for the desire "to have total control and everything for ourselves/our companies" I think you're near to 100% truth. I don't know how much China lost but I think I recall reading that it had substantial investments in Libyan oil. Somehow I doubt that the new government will be friendly towards Chinese interests, so there is yet another reason for the intervention. Makes you sad about the human race it does. The stone age logic of it all: "the next village has food, and our crops failed so lets go and whack them over the head with a club and get theirs". At least stone age men didn't need such elaborate reasoning for what was basically - robbery. So much for progress.

PC gamer mentioned the disturbingly specific "27 hours". Strangely long for an action game. If true its probably backtracking along the city hubs that makes up for a significant chunk of time. Or was that a joke on the game's timeline? The age verification system on the official website ends at 2027 I think.

I'll agree that there are other motives than oil, like 1. EU's desire to establish itself as a entity capable of solving international issues by means other than diplomacy 2. the opposite desire of the US that the EU does not become such an entity as this could question the reason for NATO's further existence (which is why the US lets the Europeans screw things up then charges to the rescue) 3. Sarkozy's politics in France 4. Removal of leaders that defy western control (political intimidation) 5. Expansion of NATO influence and who knows how many other factors. But Libya, if not for its oil, would be just another god forsaken north african country and there would be significantly less reason for involvement.

Actually if I were a super cyber security dude whose arms were already completely artificial, being able to launch/retract blades forward or backwards from my forearms without using my hands would be pretty useful, I'd think. I was referring to the stealth kill animations from the gameplay video where he offensively uses the blades from the back of his elbows. I gather the point is for it to look cool and hardcore, but it really looks comic book silly. You'd think if a man has his back to you a simple stabbing would suffice. But okay, teenager are the target audience for most games today, so I suppose I have only myself to blame for still being in this business.

Nice! I like the concept art.

That sounds like Namir, the Israeli. Maybe all villains eventually mutate to Russians.

I hate him because he's mostly right, from a salesman's perspective at least.

^^

Which one is that? The three main villains are an American, an Israeli, and a Russian. The Russian is a woman, she almost never speaks. Definitely haven't seen it in a trailer. The reason I'm asking is because the American, who is supposed to have a Minnesotan accent, fits other "big Russian" tropes. And am wondering if you're confusing Minnesotan with a sort of thick artificial Russian. Or if there's a villain I've missed. The eyepatch guy? Is he supposed to be Russian? The muscled guy with very short hair from the gameplay trailer 6? I could swear that it was a fake russian accent. Maybe he's a henchman, not a main villain, but he is ordering an even bigger guy to "get rid of him (protagonist)". What is the projected length of this game?

The fact is that he is a capable man, like Saddam Hussein was in two things: holding onto power and keeping a volatile country stable. The former isn't a very commendable trait but the latter is - in the middle east. Qaddafi would have shut down the rebellion and that would have been that, instead the country was embroiled in a civil war that, with the eventual victory of the "rebels" will be rebuilt as their autocracy against their former enemies as no other form of government exists in the middle east except as a formality. 1. There is no tangible evidence that the rebels in any way represent the majority of the people or even a decent minority. 2. There is no tangible evidence that the rebels are any more capable of ensuring stability. Actually, evidence points to the contrary 3. There is no evidence that they are any more "democratic". 4. There is no evidence that they will be any more concerned for the people of Libya given their inevitable post conflict puppet status. If anything they will have more of an obligation to those who brought them to power than to the people. I think your assumption that there would be a lengthy civil war is wrong, as it was quite clear from the onset that the rebels are inept and would be, without NATO support, quickly defeated. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that this was a cynical ploy to get political control of Libya and solidify control over its oil.

I can't recall a recent conflict where it was so obvious that the "rebellion" was created by US/EU with little to no popular support.

Oh they're not going to vanish they're just going to be released with increasing rarity, and not with an AAA treatment. Like adventure games.

Actually I think the game will be good-at least. Most of what I've seen of DX HR is CGI and marketing videos that speak nothing of the game itself. The gameplay videos are short and extensively edited. The graphics, while good in some respects are last generation tech - the console compromises are very obvious. Location design is nice, characters are mostly not as good. The villain with the thick russian accent is goofy, the blade weapons completely ridiculous (because you know, people like their bladed weapons at hand, not at their ****ing elbows). Does that equal a bad game? No! Does that mean that we have to jump on the second coming bandwagon? Hell no.

Chaos Rising is better than Retribution, that was my feeling as well. Relic has been seriously slacking in their single player campaigns ever since Dawn of War, with the notable exception of the decent CoH campaign. Yet as you play their games its obvious that the single player experience is filler, basically the last thing they get around to but considering how expensive development is now I can't say I blame them too much as long as they deliver a good product. The only one who can afford a fully fleshed out campaign these days is Blizzard, and even they did it with a higher price and by splitting the game in three separate titles.

It is much better than the originial, although much much shorter. Same applies to Retribution. The plots are very cliched in both games though, even for the WH40k universe. I wonder if they'll screw up Space Marine. It looks decent at the moment but is it different enough from other such games not to get called an another run of the mill tp shooter.

Never said it was. Are they better than VtM Bloodlines in your opinion? The boss ones are better, others aren't. Fair enough. When the reviews go on automatic "Omg its the bestest game eva" mode, I get a sudden urge to rain on their parade.