Drowsy Emperor
-
Posts
2420 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Drowsy Emperor
-
Awesome, they deserve it. The final game will be great, already fell in love with the alpha version. I've checked it out on Youtube and it looks cool. Will look into it when its done
-
Well it had to happen eventually. I mean they're old games, you can't make new old games so you're going to run out of a large supply of old games that are good that haven't appeared yet on Good Old Games. Nowadays it's just good games that gradually become good old games trickling onto Good Old Games while we're busy playing good new games, some of which feel like old games because old games are the new new games. **** you for making me read that three times.
-
Its impossible to gross me out with gayness now, I've played far too many of Bioware's newer games. On topic: I'm not complaining about GoG. Its a great idea and its executed well. I just keep coming back to the site expecting a few unreleased classics, that have been in demand for a while now, and they're just not coming. Its either some game no one played when it was new a decade ago or a new indie title (that no one will be playing a week from release).
-
InExile is plotting to ruin Torment by making it turn-based
Drowsy Emperor replied to khango's topic in Computer and Console
I hate turned based combat. Real time with pause is the best thing that ever happened to computer role playing, because its almost as tactical as turn based but much more dynamic. There is nothing more annoying than having to go through turn based combat against too easy or too difficult an opponent. You know how its going to end but you're forced to sit there while every animation you've seen a million times plays out at it own pace. And if you're able to skip or quicken it you get a jarring, stop motion mess of a gameplay experience. The most nerd rage inducing experience of my gaming "career" was the random encounters of any JRPG where you're ripped from the game to the battle screen only to have to spend minutes routinely fighing some insignificant critter. Every five steps you make in game. Wait for the animation to finish. Pick action from list. Wait. Pick another action (for every other character). Wait. Kill animation. Victory animation.... For hours on end. Makes you want to throw something at the screen. That said, the best thing about the original Torment's combat was that you could barge through it to the more interesting parts of the game. If it was turn based it would be equally obnoxious but twice as drawn out. But, this game has nothing to do with the real Torment, so ... who cares.- 343 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- turn based
- inexile
- (and 1 more)
-
Is that cloud's sword (cleaver, lol?) from FFVII? I wonder if they really expected it to cut anything (except maybe, the handler's carotid when he gets tired of holding it).
-
Shadow of the Colossus on hard difficulty. I finally managed to climb the central temple and find my way to the secret garden on the top. So typical of Ueda to put something so beautiful that obviously took a lot of time and effort to make in a location where almost no-one is likely to see it. He couldn't resist a bit of christian allegory there methinks. All the fruit in the garden lowers one's health permanently instead of increasing it, as it usually does. The other part that opened up with the climb is the bridge that looms over the landscape, which I crossed to see what's on the other side. What's normally a blur in the distance turned out to be a magnificent and enormous building ... that no one sees apart from a short bit in the intro and that serves no purpose at all, except to sit there and look pretty. If one takes the time to get to it. How much confidence it must take to make something great and then casually toss it aside. Games usually force even the worst of their content on the player just to draw out the gameplay a little bit more.
- 655 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Now?
- What about now?
- (and 2 more)
-
The really good old games seem to be showing up very rarely on GoG nowadays. System Shock 2 was, I think, the last of the highly sought after titles. I suppose the rights to some games are so tangled up in legal issues that they may not be released for years to come.
-
The US dumped every new thing straight out of the lab onto Vietnam and no one ever faced criminal charges because of it. Yet a few instances of chemical weapon use that can't be reliably proven to one of the sides are enough cause for war? Bitch, please. PS: I don't see that anyone bothered to reply to Zoraptor's observation on Israel and white phosphorus.
-
Yes Volo, he's the new dark lord of the Sith made by splicing the genes of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. Join the dark side Vol, we need more Ewoks in our ranks.
-
I think it has somewhat depreciated in value since Obama got his preemptively, thus Putin will have to receive at least two.
-
Almost a quarter of men 'admit to rape in parts of Asia'
Drowsy Emperor replied to Walsingham's topic in Way Off-Topic
China and Indya (and other Asians independent from West) are bad, blah-blah IRL statistics http://www.statisticbrain.com/rape-statistics/ http://messymatters.com/rape/ http://www.uschina.usc.edu/w_usci/showarticle.aspx?articleID=13037&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 In other words 31,833 rapes in China = 2,12 rate/100 000. Meanwhile in US 28.0 rate/100 000, in UK 23.1 rate/100 00. Western states are leaders in Rapes. Welcome to real world. This is actually correct. Even with the presumption that under-reporting is more prevalent in asian countries the US far outstrips most, if not all countries in rape. While rapes do happen everywhere I have a hard time believing that its more common in any traditional society. Not because of morals but because of repercussions. In places were its important for a woman to enter marriage as a virgin, to forcibly take away her virginity is enough reason for serious bloodshed, police or no police. -
Syria won't fight Israel under pretty much any circumstances. They'd lose, badly, even if they weren't fighting a civil war as well, plus it would guarantee US intervention, even if you had a neo isolationist (Rand Paul? so practically unlikely) as President. You can make a nice parallel between Israel's 'theoretical' nuclear stockpile and Syria's 'theoretical' stockpile though-since they both exist for the same reason (if we look like losing a war we'll nuke Damascus/ if we look like losing a war we'll gas Tel Aviv), are both undeclared, both 'illegal', both never been used (r00fles!) etc. I'm rather surprised to see the US backpedal like this. Usually these interventions are planned well ahead and there is stopping them once the decision has been made. It isn't entirely obvious what's making the US effort crumble on this issue. The congressional approval seems to be more of a result of events behind the scenes, rather than a key point in the whole affair. I'm a proponent of the theory that the modern US president is merely a representative of the various interest groups that form US policy so I don't necessarily agree that his personal strength or weakness is really an important factor. I suppose its a combination of factors: 1. the lack of public approval (although this isn't entirely necessary if past events are any indication) 2. the British parliamentary vote (while Britain isn't vital to the war effort, these things do need a veneer of legitimacy) 3. strong Russian response, Chinese response (?) this is really an unknown. The only thing we do know is some of the fleet movements and that the Russians were ready to go further than usual 4. inability to gain UN approval (not really something important for the US in previous wars) The more I think about this the more obvious it seems to me that we don't really know what is going on as all of these reasons existed before but were insufficient to stop the previous interventions.
-
Well it wouldn't be the first time the US fought alongside, funded or enabled Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. Its just that Americans have started to care after 9/11.
-
Everything you are saying makes sense expect for the fact the majority of the USA and UK public are against the war and have never been behind intervention in Syria, sorry to be logical Drowsy but you know how I detest conspiracy theories..and yes how else would you expect Assad to be portrayed but in a negative light. Anyone who is prepared to turn the might of his army and police against his own people who want political change doesn't deserve to stay in power, its as simple as that Yes, even after prolonged propaganda the pubic is still against war. Whether the US goes through with it regardless will be a good test of its own democracy. You fail to mention that in an uprising, the rebels do not necessarily represent the people or majority any more than the government does. The government exists to uphold law and order and its duty is to use its army and police against those who would destabilize it. Otherwise, what's the point of the government - it might as well not exist. The point at which the government crosses that line into terrorizing its own citizens is very hard to prove, and has not been proven so far. Considering that Assad still controls the army, which is, even in the most corrupt of countries, the most patriotic of institutions, and considering that that army surely has more than a few Sunni muslims a pretty good case could be made that the majority of Syrians, of all religions, still have faith in the government. The Christians (10% of Syrian population) are terrified of the possibility of Sunni rule, and by and large support Assad. If it was a true uprising and if Assad was a true "butcher" that indiscriminately murders everyone who is against him - it would be much easier for the opposition to find common ground and overthrow him. And they wouldn't have to rely on imported jihadists to do it.
-
To certain people, that is obviously irrelevant. Btw the whole "2 years to intervene" explanation sounds very convenient, but its common knowledge that the propaganda machine needs to start at least a year or more before an intervention in order to drum up public support and enthusiasm for war. The intention to destroy Assad was plain from the moment the uprising began, way before chemical weapons were even a topic. The tone of the news reports, where Assad is always portrayed in a negative light (despite not having done anything at that point) made it very clear from the outset what the intentions of the US are.
-
That all comes with the generous presumption that chemical weapons are really what this conflict is about and not an impossible goal used to create legitimacy for further involvement.
-
And your conclusive evidence of chemical weapon use against civilians by Assad, presented by an unbiased source, is where? You never entered this discussion with rational arguments, it was just "innocent people are dying, quick we need to act to kill the evil dictator, and don't think too hard about it either! The only thing the cruise missiles will do is destroy infrastructure that civilians need, empty government buildings evacuated long before the missiles start flying, kill innocent people when they inevitably miss and do **** all to the Syrian army. They'll do **** all to Assad too, who will be in a hardened bunker somewhere. That's what happened in '99. It doesn't take a great amount of intelligence to deduce that these actions are in fact just terror tactics against civilians to convince them, by force, that a regime change is necessary. What use was there in destroying government buildings like the federal army HQ in Belgrade center in '99? Everyone knew it was empty and unused at that point, just a pretty building built way before the government of the day that was supposedly the target of the bombing. A pointless waste of a million dollar missile a rational person would say. In truth it was destroyed in an attempt to cow the civilians that walk by it every day in one of the busiest streets of the city out of anger because the airstrikes weren't doing squat against the army on the ground. I know exactly what's going on through the minds of the people in Syria right now, probably better than anyone on this forum. The sunni, the shia, the christians, none of them want the US there. None of them want bombs flying over their heads. The only ones who do are army pricks, paid NGO's and fringe politicians that will sit out the bombs in their bases and bunkers or even in neighboring countries waiting to seize power and finally stop being the nobodies they are.
-
What conspiracy? Is everything that contradicts CNN and BBC a conspiracy today? Assad had no reason to use chemical weapons that would inevitably inflame pubic opinion in a war he's winning on all fronts. Even the most biased reports admit the rebels are losing. Rebels need a US intervention or they're dead. Rebels use chemical weapons, US gains pseudo justification for war. US intervenes. Put the two and two together please.
-
The other day a former US military attache in Syria, in other words a CIA spook openly said on CNN that using cruise missiles on supposed chemical weapons will be ineffective due to them being stored in hardened bunkers. He also said that there are far too many rocket delivery system for them to be destroyed this way. He continued to say that the US could easily get drawn in further because they'll have to start using airplane delivered bunker busters (thereby going further than planned). He also said its very likely that planes will be shot down, necessitating military rescue operations which in turn leads to full scale invasion down the road. The only questions are if this was the plan from the start and how other countries will react.
-
Evidence of what? Is the US going to let itself be convinced that the people of Saudi Arabia are crying out for freedom and that the Saudi king is a brutal dictator that should be toppled? Assad, like any other leader, in any country, is fully within his rights to put down a rebellion. How is a leader to manage an uprising if not by force of arms? What is he supposed to do, buy them a coffee at Starbucks and send them on their way? The US, Israel and certain EU countries purposefully escalated the uprising to a full scale civil war. Assad in fact has no choice but to fight to the bitter end because if he gives up they'll hang him in a kangaroo court like Saddam Hussein to cover up their own crimes. What exactly do you expect of him? To jump into the sunni noose or die like a dog due to lack of adequate medical care in a US sponsored court like Milosevic?
-
Nothing new. The albanian UCK was designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department (?) right up to the bombing of '99. With ties to islamic fundamentalism no less. Didn't stop the US supporting them. The business interests that drive US foreign policy have a habit of ignoring their own intelligence organizations whenever they do their job - in other words, speak the truth.
-
Don't want things accidentally bombed, after all. Also I guess it plays well at home to make a show of that - standing up to the West or something along those lines. Its a wonder how quiet the Chinese are too. They took the loss of their assets in Libya (I read they had something in oil there, a concession or whatever) without so much as a blink. But their first aircraft carriers haven't started rolling out yet so that might be less surprising. You can't really play poker without cards after all.
-
I have no clue what the Russians are doing at this point. I suppose they sent the ships to protect their naval base against "accidents"
-
Actually Zoraptor's observation is quite accurate. The similarities are so many that at this point the propaganda is so worn out its only any good for internal use. Even Americans aren't buying it, if they're asked directly and not ethically "blackmailed" by the chemical weapons nonsense. If it wasn't so terrible it would actually be amusing, the way Obama drew the line for intervention at chemical weapons and Assad, if you trust CNN, happily obliged to use them just a week later.
-
It didn't take much effort to convince you that Assad is an incarnation of Satan. Even though Syria was one of the more secular and progressive places in the Islamic world under his rule. It is a well known fact that Christians had a decent position in Syrian society, unlike Egypt or SA where they're persecuted, churches burned and sometimes killed. Like the rebels are doing now: http://www.dw.de/several-christians-killed-in-attack-by-syrian-rebels-near-homs/a-17027117
