Drowsy Emperor

One product of this situation the US probably never intended is that its in fact bringing Germany and Russia closer together. The German support for the whole escapade is becoming more token with each passing day judging by the talks between Merkel and Obama. Berlin is officially supporting Kiev, but in reality the major players in Germany are dead set against worsening relations with Russia. The German-Russian economic relations are taking precedence over US-German political relations which is a wholly new development. It speaks of a Germany that's on its way to independence from US influence. That's probably the worst nightmare of the UK-US political axis in Europe.

A government's legitimacy comes from the way it comes into power and the way it holds onto it. Russia may be supporting the eastern territories but its still the people living there that are choosing to fight and die rather than accept the authority of the Kiev junta. If they don't accept the legitimacy of the government its obvious it had none in those regions in the first place. Even more damning is choosing to take power by force rather than through the ballot. That speaks of a "government" without any semblance of broad consensus which is the most important thing any government is based upon. The sole result of their "rule" is borderline civil war and further economic deterioration. The terminology in use here is also off. Since there is no "government" with an internationally recognized legitimacy, there are no "separatists". For all intents and purposes its civil war between one larger entity that's abusing the state mechanisms that it has in its control and one smaller entity and that's how the situation should be treated. Calling the people holding onto power in Kiev a government affords them the protection and legitimacy they don't have. It mustn't be forgotten that they only reason they took control of Kiev is because their political parties have the majority in the capital and in a part of the country. The mob on the streets of Kiev was never once representative of the country's population and political opinions - which is now more obvious than ever.

Say that to the 60000 people playing Team Fortress 2 every day on Steam.

Looking at the speed Steam has been filling up with utter rotten crap, I'm not sure is that a good thing. I would prefer at least some quality standards to be set. Yes there is so much rubbish there now half of the steam "news"are borderline spam if you were to go by the quality of the offerings.

They do that when a game becomes free for the weekend and such

...because we couldn't be bothered to adapt it to the PC.

Yes, 40 people are dead for nothing. When they were burning government buildings Yanukovich during the Euromaidan didn't send armed people to murder citizens en masse. At this point there is no reason or justification for the existence of the Kiev "government" which is now nothing more than a bunch of bandits who seized power and are now trying to hold onto it at all costs.

I'm giving the Witcher 2 a little break after a marathon session. The game is a curious mix of improvements and one step forward, two steps back moments. Its greatest failing, one that Dragon Age Origins also committed, is treating its own lore as though its anything more than a backdrop for telling a story the player can relate to. The story is so mired in thoroughly unimportant and interchangeable politics and so bothered with introducing twists that it loses focus on what's most important - the characters, the human element. The principal characters haven't grown a single iota from the first game. Indeed, Geralt is now perhaps less sympathetic than before. From a vaguely ugly individual with a dry sense of humor, inclined to resolve matters without violence if possible to a "Hollywood leading man" - good looking, shallow, aggressive "act first think later". The shift isn't drastic but its definitely there. Other characters are problematic because of their transitory nature. In the opening of chapter two, suddenly there are half a dozen new characters that I've no idea who they are and what they're about. Worst of all no one is either likable or despicable, they're mostly, well, typical. And most importantly of all, why should I care? Who gets some piece of land in one fantasy kingdom or another, the fate of a love interest I didn't pick in the previous game... clearing Geralt's name... its all a thin and weak motivator. The area design and logically the exploration, the sense of wonder - its simply not there. The areas are very clearly quest hubs, insufficiently organic in their nature even with the NPC day-night cycles. The chaper 2 dwarven town is so rote in its design that it makes the DAO dwarven city look good. The graphics though, are splendid. In visual qualities, nothing can hope to complete - Dragon Age 3 is Bioware playing catch -up to maybe succeed - the first two games aren't even worth mentioning as competitors. Skyrim isn't in the same league either. The combat, once one gets over the sometimes crushing difficulty of boss fights is actually much improved over the first game. Since my girlfriend is playing it now I can compare it side by side and its obvious that their goal was to make the former combat elements (potions, bombs, signs, positioning) actually important to gameplay. In the original you had all these things, but except on rare occasions they didn't really matter. Now they're obligatory and its very advantageous to use them. That said, the combat animations aren't always representative of what's going on under the hood - sometimes the enemies aren't parrying visually but Geralt is landing blows on them and not doing any damage. Areas are often too tight to make full use of the very important rolling around dodge. Signs get blocked by terrain elements like rocks and such. The use of QTE's has been overemphasized by players - there are very few of them around and mostly restricted to minigames. The minigames are inexplicably bad. Visually dice poker (a rather fun game IMO) looks worse than before. The great looking table from the first game is gone and the board and dice are both full of visual clutter. The fist-fighting is QTE nonsense. Granted, its wasn't much more complicated the first time around but at least it shared the mechanics of the combat system. Here you tap one or two of WASD keys and animations play out. Ridiculous. Arm wrestling is passable but too easy. Character progression is okay, like in the first game. The inventory and journal are irredeemable, victims of console compromises (and bad even for console games). While this all sounds quite negative the surprising conclusion is that the game is still very good. Its just fallen victim of the blockbuster syndrome, mechanically repeating elements that previously led to success as if they didn't realize that these elements made sense in the proper context. Like swearing. The Witcher helped free us from Bioware's soft spoken tyranny of niceness. No one swears in the BW universe because its not nice. No one is loud in the BW universe unless they're mad or a villain (also mad), and even then, not for very long. Because its not nice. Their characters speak in pseudo Shakespearean drivel that is appropriate for 10% hand in glove of human interactions. The Witcher was simply more believable. But in the Witcher 2 everybody swears, all the time. They're all brutes, all ****. Its now just the opposite end of the BW spectrum, equally absurd and no longer authentic (insofar as a fictional world can be authentic). But even with all those flaws there's really nothing that compares to it. Its the sole AAA story driven single player RPG to play, because what little competition there is, doesn't have much to offer in that regard. I hope they level out the tone a bit in the third game, especially regarding Geralt's character.

Its curious how pervasive the neoliberal economic dogma is considering its been proven wrong and led to disastrous results in every place the MMF etc. have enforced it. The only thing its succeeded in is creating more impoverished and unemployed people everywhere, while the elites grew fat with foreign currency. Which they stored in foreign banks making them easy to blackmail and control and utterly useless to their respective nation state. The future of the EU is debatable. Spain and Italy are in serious economic trouble and the EU barely got its act together to bail out Greece. And Greece is small compared to the other two. The way they scratched and clawed (and yet barely agreed in the end) not to let Greece default speaks volumes on how tenuous EU stability is, if it cannot allow even one shock to the system lest the whole house of cards come crashing down.

Dunno, I tried Skyrim for a bit the other day at it was just like Oblivion but without all the greenery, so, uglier.

That's a rather simplistic view of things. Most of the goods Ukraine produces can only be sold in Russia, there is no other market for them. The EU cannot offer energy to Ukraine at the same prices as Russia. Ukraine will not become an EU member in the foreseeable future, therefore it cannot enjoy the same privileges as other countries. What is the EU going to offer Ukraine? Security? Free lunch? We're not children here, we all know that "aid packages" are loans for buying time, political influence and really more about saving foreign interests that stand to lose a lot more than Ukraine if it defaults. And apart from borrowed time, what? Russia can offer them a market, energy and with the CIS security guarantees. Its not going to make a wonderland out of Ukraine but the alternative is the worse poverty than they're in now, as the good energy deals come to an end and Ukrainian exports dry up.

I think the second prequel movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen, although the first one is a close contender. Its tough to say what was worse, the acting, the script or the directing. If it was set in any other universe other than SW it would have been forgotten day after release. The third one was merely mediocre. KOTOR 2 had a better Star Wars story than all the prequel movies combined.

That looks nice and strangely similar to Planetary Annihilation

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well. Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least. JJAbrams is an average director. But I don't consider any of the Star Wars film as particularly well directed. I'm not a fan, as it were, and I don't think that at this point in the very bloated SW universe a movie can be made that will bring back the magic for those who grew up around the originals even if you hire the best possible directors. Back in the day, when it was a fairy tale without a ton of lore hanging around its neck, there was a lot more room for creativity. Empire Strikes Back was extraordinarily well directed, and what I'd consider a marvel visually & audio wise, whether or not you think that its plot can hold up to the standards of today is arguable, I suppose. It set a standard for social aesthetics of future generations of today, which none of the other movies ever managed to reach. It followed up with a more mature & darker tone than its predecessor with the inclusion of moral ambiguity -- It tended to lots of subplots and character arcs that all got resolved, expanded upon the workings of the Force, and ended with one of the shocking twists in cinema. I don't think anybody has to be into Star Wars to see what is so great about Empire -- I do get what you're saying though -- I wouldn't want a follow-up to Blade Runner either since it's impossible to achieve the same level the first one got, merely because a sequel would have to go even further, which isn't exactly encouraging. Regardless, it's a film and as a film-nut and one who holds Empire Strikes Back in high regard, it deserves to be as great as it can be. Its a great fairy tale for a particular time and generation but I can't take it seriously, to me its at best a good representation of commercial cinema at worst a movie for kids. Its not remotely close to, say, Blade Runner in any regard IMO of course.

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well. Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least. JJAbrams is an average director. But I don't consider any of the Star Wars film as particularly well directed. I'm not a fan, as it were, and I don't think that at this point in the very bloated SW universe a movie can be made that will bring back the magic for those who grew up around the originals even if you hire the best possible directors. Back in the day, when it was a fairy tale without a ton of lore hanging around its neck, there was a lot more room for creativity.

Hack as compared to what, George Lucas?

http://rt.com/news/155856-ukraine-alert-president-army/ Talk about blowing your own trumpet only to admit its a toilet paper roll and not a trumpet.

There are so many things that could have been done differently in the Witcher 2, but it obviously has something going for it since I played it for 8 hours straight yesterday.

As was somewhat expected the rats in Kiev are at each other's throats: http://rt.com/news/155748-rally-kiev-massive-fight/ Now that they've "served their purpose" as the brownshirts of the protests Kiev expects the neo-nazis to disappear, which is not happening.

lol

If I may make one suggestion Mr Emperor, when near the end of chapter one you have to make a binary choice, choose the Elf first time. Far more enjoyable path, though of course it's up to you. Good timing on your part, I'm at that juncture this very minute

Ah, well I didn't KS ToN, or anything for that matter. I pay for the finished product, if its any good.... Regarding combat and ToN, it will all depend on the story. If its good, no one will care that there is little combat, like with PST. If not, well, that's not going to be so good then. I'm not against combat in RPGs but I like them to be integral to the the plot, not thrown in to pad game length. Trash mobs bore me and are an obstacle to exploration and immersion. Everything in moderation, in other words.

Dunno but I hope they keep the sys req reasonable. My laptop can handle W2 on mostly high settings and I'm not buying another one or upgrading any time soon

The W1 inventory is a single screen at least... The second one is a case of console list chaos.

Did you KS ToN? Its exactly the multi-hour navel gazing that made me sprint in the opposite direction of that game. Ive never played any of the Divinity games, so Im not sure what I was expecting, but I was hoping for a game in the vein of BGII (high fantasy, good combat). ToN?